COSTELLO and DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

In this case, the applicant, Mr Costello, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to refuse his application for a taxi licence. Mr Costello had been convicted of possession and supply of cannabis, and the Department considered his conviction to be a significant factor in determining that he was not of good character. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the decision-maker had correctly applied the relevant statutory criteria in reaching their decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the decision-maker was required to have a reason to believe that Mr Costello was not of good character, or if it was sufficient for the decision-maker to have considered his criminal history in making their decision. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the decision-maker could take into account the hardship that would be suffered by Mr Costello and his family if the taxi licence was refused.

The court found that the decision-maker was required to have a reason to believe that Mr Costello was not of good character, rather than simply considering his criminal history. The court held that the decision-maker must be satisfied that the applicant does not possess the requisite moral qualities to hold a taxi licence, and that this must be based on more than just the fact of the conviction. The court also found that hardship to the applicant and their family could not be taken into account when determining whether an applicant was of good character. The court quashed the decision of the Department and remitted the matter for reconsideration in light of these findings.

As a result of the court's decision, the matter was remitted to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings. The Department was required to consider whether it had a reason to believe that Mr Costello was not of good character, based on more than just his criminal history, and whether hardship could be taken into account in making their decision. The Department was also required to provide Mr Costello with an opportunity to make further submissions in light of the court's decision.