Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Achi (GD)

[2002] NSWADTAP 11

Appeal Panel

CITATION:	Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service -v- Achi (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 11
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service RESPONDENT Ghassan Achi
FILE NUMBER:	019041
HEARING DATES:	08/11/2001
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	11/08/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	11/08/2001
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Achi -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 135
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Goode P - Judicial Member; Mapperson K - Member
CATCHWORDS:	unreasonableness
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	003153
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	08/15/2001
LEGISLATION CITED:	Security Industry Act 1997
CASES CITED:	Commissioner of Police -v- Yaghi (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 35
REPRESENTATION:	APPELANT C Capper, solicitor RESPONDENT R Webb, barister
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed; 2. Decision under review affirmed.

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE

1 Orders made, with the agreement of the appellant:

(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Decision under review affirmed.

2 The above orders were entered with the agreement of the appellant following short submissions to the Panel. The following background is provided.

3 The Commissioner appeals against a decision of the Tribunal setting his decision to revoke a licence issued under the Security Industry Act 1997 (the SI Act). The point of law is the same one as was considered by the same Appeal Panel in the case of Commissioner of Police -v- Yaghi (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 35, namely whether the Commissioner’s power to revoke a licence on the ground that the licencee had been found guilty of a prescribed offence only applied to such findings (or convictions) made prior to the date of renewal of the current licence. The Tribunal below had in Yaghi’s case construed s 26(1)(a) of the SI Act in that narrow way. The Appeal Panel held that such a construction was in error; and the Commissioner was entitled to have regard to findings of guilt or convictions in respect of prescribed offences that occurred during the currency of the licence, and move to revoke on that basis.

4 In Yaghi’s case the Appeal Panel declined the Commissioner’s application to set aside the decision under appeal, as it was satisfied that the outcome would have been the same had the Tribunal properly construed s 26(1)(a). In that case the Commissioner had also relied on two other bases for exercising the discretion to revoke, and the Tribunal had been satisfied that in relation to those grounds the Commissioner had not reached the correct and preferable decision in the circumstances. The Appeal Panel considered that it would not have reached any different conclusion had it properly construed s 26(1)(a).

5 This is a parallel case, in that three grounds were relied upon, and there is no challenge to the Tribunal’s understanding of the law in relation to the other two grounds. Nor is there any submission that in relation to those two grounds the Tribunal’s decision was affected by manifest unreasonableness.

6 Consequently, the solicitor for the Commissioner acknowledged at the hearing of the appeal that it would not press for a reconsideration of the decision in relation to the merits, and the above orders were made.