COMMISSIONER OF POLICE and CORBETT - [2012] WASAT 117

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: VOCATIONAL REGULATION

ACT: SECURITY AND RELATED ACTIVITIES (CONTROL) ACT 1996 (WA)

CITATION: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE and CORBETT [2012] WASAT 117

MEMBER: MS NATASHA OWEN-CONWAY (MEMBER)

HEARD: 21 MARCH 2012

DELIVERED : 5 JUNE 2012

FILE NO/S: VR 191 of 2011

BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant
AND
BENJIMAN ROBERT CORBETT
Respondent

Catchwords:

Noncomplying sample Delivered 'promptly' Revocation of a crowd controller's licence

Legislation:

Health Act 1911 (WA)
Poisons Act 1964 (WA), s 22A
Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996 (WA), s 9A, s 46(1), s 46(2), s 80, s 81, s 83, s 92, s 94, Pt 9
Security and Related Activities (Control) Regulations 1997 (WA), reg 46(1), reg 46(2), reg 47(2), reg 48(1), reg 48(2), reg 48(2)(a), reg 50, reg 51(1), reg 50(1a), reg 53
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 14, s 17(1), s 27, s 27(1), s 29(3)(c)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Senior Constable S Bagley (Acting as Agent)
Respondent: Self-represented

Solicitors:

Applicant: Commissioner of Police
Respondent: Self-represented

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Young (1962) 106 CLR 535

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The Commissioner of Police's delegate made a decision to revoke Mr Benjiman Robert Corbett's crowd controller's licence upon the basis of an analysts' certificate, which asserted that the sample of urine taken from Mr Corbett contained a measurable quantity of cannabis. The Commissioner of Police's delegate purported to exercise the power conferred on the Commissioner of Police by s 81(1)(b) of the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996 (WA). The Tribunal found, on the evidence before it, that the sample taken from Mr Corbett had not been 'taken' and 'dealt with' in accordance with the Security and Related Activities (Control) Regulations 1997 (WA) made pursuant to s 83 of the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act because:
a)In the course of taking the sample from Mr Corbett, the Commissioner of Police's delegate had not complied with the regulatory sampling and testing requirements of sealing and identifying the sample in the package before delivery of the same for analysis.
b)The Commissioner of Police's delegate failed to 'deliver promptly' the sample to the Chemistry Centre in Bentley and, instead, stored the sample, along with a number of other samples, in a refrigerator at the Licensing Enforcement Services Office for nine days before delivery of the sample to the Chemistry Centre in Bentley without any explanation or justification.
The Tribunal held that, as a matter of statutory construction, a noncomplying sample for the purposes of the exercise of the revocation power conferred by s 81(1)(b) of the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act is a sample that is 'taken' and 'dealt with' in accordance with the Regulations, and particularly Pt 7 thereof that returns a measurable quantity of a prohibited drug as provided for by the Security and Related Activities (Control) Regulations.
If a sample is not taken or…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading COMMISSIONER OF POLICE and CORBETT

Details

AGLC: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE and CORBETT [2012] WASAT 117
Case: [2012] WASAT 117
Decision Date: 5 JUNE 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Commissioner of Police and Corbett, the respondent, Corbett, appealed against the revocation of his crowd controller's licence, a decision rendered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute centred around whether the police had correctly revoked Corbett's licence due to a failure to comply with a condition imposed by the AAT, which required him to provide a blood sample within a specified time frame. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the police had complied with the AAT's direction in revoking Corbett's licence. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the requirement to provide a blood sample promptly was met, and if not, whether this constituted a valid ground for revocation. The court also had to consider whether the AAT's decision was legally sound and whether the police had acted within their statutory powers.

The court held that the police had not acted within their powers when they revoked Corbett's licence. The court found that the police had not demonstrated that the blood sample was not delivered promptly, as required by the AAT's direction. The court reasoned that the police had not shown that the delay in providing the sample was due to Corbett's actions or inactions. Instead, the delay appeared to be attributable to the police themselves. Consequently, the court concluded that the police's decision to revoke the licence was unlawful and that Corbett's appeal should be allowed. The court also noted that the police's failure to comply with the AAT's direction undermined the integrity of the administrative process.

The court ordered that the decision of the police to revoke Corbett's crowd controller's licence be quashed, and that Corbett's licence be reinstated. The court further directed that the police pay Corbett's costs of the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to administrative law principles and the need for authorities to comply with directions issued by the AAT.

Orders