Director-General, Ministry of Transport v Haider (No 2) (GD)

[2005] NSWADTAP 7

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION:	Director-General, Ministry of Transport v Haider (No 2) (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 7
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Director-General, Ministry of Transport RESPONDENT Tahir Haider
FILE NUMBER:	049011
HEARING DATES:	22/12/2004
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	12/22/2004
DATE OF DECISION:	02/25/2005
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Haider v Director-General, Ministry of Transport [2004] NSWADT (26 February 2004)
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Britton A - Judicial Member; O'Neill A - Non Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Passenger Transport Act - Taxi driver - cancellation of authority - Taxi driver - cancellation of authority
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter - merits
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	033355
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	02/26/2004
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Passenger Transport Act 1990
CASES CITED:	Director General, Ministry of Transport -v- Haider [2004] NSWADT (26 February 2004) Director General, Ministry of Transport -v- Haider (GD) [2004] NSWADTAP 42
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT A Wozniak, solicitor RESPONDENT In person
ORDERS:	1. Application for review dismissed; 2. Decision under review affirmed.

1 On 28 September 2004, this Appeal Panel set aside a decision of the General Division of the Tribunal in which it had restored a taxi driver authority held by Tahir Haider after the Director General, Department of Transport had cancelled it: Director General, Ministry of Transport -v- Haider (GD) [2004] NSWADTAP 42 (the Tribunal decision is not reported - Director General, Ministry of Transport -v- Haider [2004] NSWADT (26 February 2004)).

2 The relevant legislation is the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (the Act). Instead of remitting the application to the General Division for a further hearing, the Appeal Panel decided, as permitted by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the Tribunal Act) s 113(2), to extend its hearing to the merits. This is our decision on the merits of the application.

3 Mr Haider was first issued with an authority on 29 May 2002. He lives at Toowoon Bay and commenced working for Central Coast Taxis, which is based at Gosford and serves the towns of the Central Coast. It is the only taxi company in its area.

4 In the period 24 November 2002 to 27 September 2003 nine complaints were lodged with the Department over his conduct towards passengers, leading the Director General to suspend his authority on 3 October 2003, and after inviting him to show cause, cancelling his authority on 12 November 2003.

5 After being unsuccessful in his application to the Director General for review of the decision to cancel his authority, Mr Haider lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 16 December 2003. The Tribunal decided to set aside the Director General’s decision on 26 February 2004, leading to Mr Haider’s authority being restored. He resumed driving cabs, but again lost the authority when the Appeal Panel set aside the Tribunal’s decision on the ground of an error of law on 28 September 2004.

6 The hearing relevant to this decision took place on 22 December 2004. Mr Haider, as he has done throughout, appeared in person. Mr Wozniak, solicitor, appeared for the Department.

7 The obligation of the Tribunal when dealing with the merits of an application for review is ‘to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it’: Tribunal Act, s 63(1). The Tribunal may, and often does, have regard to material that has become available since the administrator dealt with the matter. Equally it is open to the Appeal Panel in a hearing on the merits to have regard to material that has become available since the original Tribunal decision.

8 On this occasion Mr Wozniak sought initially to tender such additional material. After some discussion with the parties, the Appeal Panel decided to proceed to deal with the matter on the basis of the evidence as it was presented to hearing of the Tribunal that occurred on 27 January 2004 and 26 February 2004. After some further discussion with the parties, it was agreed that the Appeal Panel would simply review the evidence received on that occasion. The Panel relied on the transcript and did not recall any of the witnesses who gave evidence at the original hearing.

9 In our earlier decision we set out the main features of the five complaints against Mr Haider that were relied on at the hearing before the General Division. We will now deal with them in greater detail.

Complaints 1 and 2

10 These matters are related. The first involves the experience of a young woman on the night of 24 November 2002. This led to a telephone complaint, followed by a written complaint dated 17 December 2002, of which Mr Haider was notified. On 23 December 2002 an incident occurred outside the family home involving Mr Haider, leading to a complaint from the young woman’s mother.

(1) 24 November 2002

11 The passenger’s letter of complaint dated 17 December 2002 is contained in the Department file at p.23; and, as noted, followed an earlier telephone complaint.

12 The passenger said in her complaint that she had a booking for 11.30 pm to pick her up from home to go to work at Bateau Bay: ‘On the way the cab driver started making very derogatory remarks about my appearance and smart remarks saying I must eat to much McDonalds’ (sic). She referred to being very upset and reporting her concerns to the duty manager at work. She gave the taxi number (039) and job numbers.

13 She said at hearing that when she was in the taxi the driver was making smiles and smirks at her, as if there was some joke, and she felt uncomfortable.

14 Mr Haider agreed that he was the driver on this occasion. He said that the passenger started talking to him. As to the suggestion that he had said she was too fat, he said she had misunderstood something he said. On his account he had said, ‘McDonald’s is no good because that makes people fat’ (Transcript (‘ts’), 27 January 2004, 17).

15 Mr Haider cross-examined the passenger, with the assistance of the Tribunal. The passenger insisted that the remarks made to her were not as suggested by Mr Haider (general remarks) but were specific to her, and were about her and her weight. She was asked if, perhaps, she was not reliable because like a lot of passengers collected at that time of night she was sleepy and not wide awake. The passenger emphatically rejected that suggestion, noting that she was on the way to work.

16 As to Complaint 1, we prefer the evidence of the passenger. We have had regard to the fact that Mr Haider is a relatively recent immigrant to Australia, and English is not his first language. The passenger’s account was supported by complaint evidence. The transcript reveals that her account was consistent with her original complaint. We are satisfied that she was the subject of derogatory and unwelcome personal remarks about her appearance.

(2) 23 December 2002

17 The passenger’s mother gave evidence on this matter. She adopted as her evidence in chief the contents of her letter to the Department (at 20-22 of the Department file).

18 In that letter she gave the following account of what occurred. She said that she booked a cab for her daughter at 6.30 pm on 23 December 2002 for her to go to work at Bateau Bay. She specifically requested that taxi 039 (the taxi used on 24 November 2002) not be sent. This request was fulfilled.

19 Later, at 7.00 pm, the mother heard ‘a lot of horn honking outside my house and when I looked out the window I saw a taxi out the front of my place with his passenger door open’. She said that she immediately rang the taxi operator to find out why this was happening. She was asked check the taxi number. She looked out the window and saw that the taxi was no 039. She then heard ‘a lot of thumping on my door’. She complained to the operator who advised her not to answer the front door. She could hear that the operator was contacting taxi 039 on the radio.

20 The operator asked what the driver was doing outside this house when he was asked not to attend. She heard the driver say, ‘I came to apologise to the lady’, and the operator replied, ‘This is harassment and that you have no right honking your horn outside the lady’s home or banging on the front door, it’s harassment’. She then referred to hearing the operator tell the driver that the appropriate way to apologise was by letter given first to the taxi company and then handed to the lady. The mother referred to being rather frightened and shocked by the incident.

21 In a letter to the Ministry on 7 January 2003 the company identified Mr Haider as the driver on this occasion.

22 Mr Haider said he had no recollection of the incident. He said that after receiving the first complaint he had asked the base operator whether he should go to the lady’s house and apologise, and had been told not to. He claimed he had never gone to anyone else’s house without reason.

23 This statement is inconsistent with the contents of the memorandum dated 7 January 2003 recording the action taken by the network manager, Mr Vaughan, where it is reported that Mr Haider had ‘said he only attended the address to apologise in person’. A disciplinary reprimand had been issued by the company. The mother attended the hearing to give evidence. She directly identified Mr Haider as the driver.

24 We are satisfied that Mr Haider was the driver on this occasion. We agree with the Tribunal’s observation that it was implausible that Mr Haider could have no recollection of an incident of this kind. There is no reason not to accept in its entirety the mother’s account of the events of the evening of 23 December 2002.

Complaint 3

23 August 2003

25 The passenger was a young woman a nurse aged 24 years. She had travelled alone from Gosford Hospital to Lisarow in line with a booking for 10.15 pm, 23 August 2003, given to Taxi 474. The initial complaint in this matter was made to the taxi company by way of a phone call from an older woman, a family friend, at whose house the passenger was living (who we will describe for convenience as ‘the landlady’). As suggested by the company the landlady confirmed her complaint in writing: see later dated 25 August 2003.

26 The letter of complaint included the following:

‘When [the passenger] entered the cab the Indian driver almost reversed into a car behind him when there was no need as the road in front of him was clear of traffic. He then abused the driver behind him, using the ‘f’ word, called him a ‘s***head, where did he get his licence, etc. To diffuse the foul language and atmosphere, [the passenger] asked polite questions about his shift. [sic]

As the journey progressed she was then subjected to the most extraordinarily personal questions … Who did she live with? boy or girl? Did she have a boyfriend? He suggested she was a good girl, are you a virgin? And further lewd and sexual references. She responded by saying she thought his questions were inappropriate.

It was very dark when she returned home, and she was so frightened she ran up a shared driveway and hid in a neighbour’s doorway so he would not know where she lived. She was shaking when she entered our home.’

27 The landlady gave evidence by telephone and confirmed the contents of her letter. She described the young woman as coming into her bedroom ‘as white as a sheet, and she was literally trembling, and threw herself on my bed and – and just couldn’t get her words out, initially, and when I finally calmed her down, I was able to get from her what had happened in the taxi’ (ts, 27 January 2004, 81-82). She then recounted what had been said to her; this account is substantially consistent with the letter.

28 She said that the young woman had had a sheltered upbringing. She said ‘She’s – you know, very experienced in her work - but anything like this, which would be of a sexual nature, or a man encroaching on some things which were of a personal nature, she wouldn’t know how to handle; it never happened to her before’ (ts, 27 January 2004, 83). The witness said that she had rung the telephone immediately at about 11 pm with the complaint, and wrote the letter later.

29 Mr Haider admitted that he was the driver but denied much of the detail of the complaint. As to the driving incident, he said that he was abused by the other driver, and that he said nothing to him and that he merely had a social conversation with the passenger. He has repeatedly denied that he had discussed any matters of a sexual nature with his passenger.

30 The passenger also gave evidence, by telephone. She described in her evidence the journey. Her account was consistent with that set out in her landlady’s letter of complaint. Asked how she felt about the questions, she replied ‘A total invasion of my privacy. I felt quite – yes – vulnerable, threatened.’ (ts, 27 January 2004, 91)

31 It is clear in this instance that there is a degree of consistency between Mr Haider’s version of what occurred on this trip and that of the complainant. There was a driving incident of some kind at the beginning of the trip, there was a conversation initiated by the passenger as her way of trying to calm the situation after that incident their respective backgrounds (she was a New Zealander working in Australia), and there was a conversation at drop off about the ambulance.

32 The conflict in the evidence relates to whether anything was said of the lewd and sexual nature as reported initially by the landlady and the subject of specific testimony at hearing by the passenger. We see no reason to doubt the veracity of the young woman.

33 The landlady’s account of her emotional state on arrival home suggests that something very frightening had occurred during the trip. While the initial altercation between Mr Haider and another driver at the hospital may have contributed to her feeling some trauma, had the conversation that followed proceeded in the orderly way suggested by Mr Haider, that trauma would have been minor or gone by the time the passenger got home. We are satisfied that something occurred during the course of that conversation which left the young women in the agitated state observed by her landlady, something that went beyond the traffic incident. The young woman’s evidence was entirely consistent with the initial complaint authored on her behalf. Mr Haider has not been a witness of truth on crucial matters in this proceeding. We are satisfied that Mr Haider spoke to her in the way she described, and caused her to be agitated and in fear for her safety.

Complaint 4

3 September 2003

34 The passenger was a young woman of 19. Her mother had booked her a taxi to take her from her place at Long Jetty to her mother’s place at The Entrance after she had spoken to her mother by phone and told her she did not feel well. The daughter had explained that she only had a $50 note on her. The mother said she told the company this when she called it to book the taxi.

35 At the time the mother was attending a dinner party at a friend’s place. About half an hour after making the booking she said that she called her daughter to see how she was. She stated in evidence that her daughter was crying and really upset. The mother immediately reported the incident to the taxi company and then returned home to be with her daughter.

36 The mother followed up the next day, as suggested, with a letter, which she then supplemented with a fax containing more information given to her by her daughter.

37 The complaint alleged that the driver had engaged in a highly intrusive conversation of a personal nature with the young woman, had stopped for change when that should have been unnecessary, and had driven very slowly between Long Jetty and The Entrance, a short distance of about 3 to 4 kms. The complaint described the shock and trauma experienced by the passenger.

38 Mr Haider denied that he was the driver; though he acknowledged that he was driving on the night of 3 September 2003 and the taxi allocated to him was no 474.

39 The passenger and the mother gave evidence by phone. As we indicated in our earlier decision, this was a less than desirable arrangement in the circumstances, given that there had been a denial by Mr Haider that he was the driver.

The Issue of Identity

40 We, like the original Tribunal, have before us the following information as to the driver on the night in question:

(i) the passenger’s description of him as being of ‘Indian’ appearance (Mr Haider has acknowledged that he is sometimes described in this way, though he is from Lebanon)

(ii) At hearing in answer to a Tribunal question Melody said she had never been driven by that driver before, but described him thus: ‘He was, I think, Indian – that’s a guess – and he was dark, dark hair shortish. That’s about all I can explain.’ (ts, 27 January 2004, 105)

(iii) the company’s statement that only two drivers on its roster were of ‘ethnic’ appearance, Mr Haider and one other

(iv) that company booking records showed that Mr Haider’s taxi (no 474) had been given the job in question

(v) that the other driver that might answer to the passenger’s description was driving a maxi-taxi, and had another job some distance away at about the same time

(vi) the passenger’s evidence that the taxi that had collected her was a sedan not a maxi-taxi

(vii) the taxi company records show that the car allocated to Mr Haider that night was a sedan.

41 Finding: We are satisfied, in particular, by the cab company’s job allocation records, that Mr Haider was the driver of the cab in which the young woman travelled on the evening of 3 September 2003.

The Conduct

42 The staff member of the taxi company who received the mother’s call filled out a ‘Customer Complaint’ form (see Department file, p 34), and under the heading ‘nature of complaint’ she recorded:

‘mother rang 20.30 daughter was crying & hysterical on arrival. Said the taxi driver kept asking her lots of personal questions and took the back roads to get to the Entrance. Would like someone to ring her re this complaint. Daughter is 18 yo.’

43 The next morning the mother sent a letter to the taxi company by fax and then a further fax. Part of these documents as held in the Department file is blanked out, presumably to preserve the complainant’s anonymity. The first part of the first letter is as follows:

‘Last night, September 3rd, I rang a taxi for my daughter at BLANK to bring her to The Entrance. My daughter is 19 years old. She was feeling unwell, and didn’t want to be at her new house alone. I was out with friends.

I rang her about half an hour later to see how she was feeling, and she was very upset. The taxi driver had behaved very badly. He’d made suggestive remarks, driven very slowly, while looking at her in the rear vision mirror, took all the back streets between Long Jetty and The Entrance and generally made her feel threatened, and unsafe.’

44 The letter then went on to refer to her daughter’s familiarity with taxis and that she had never complained about anything like this before. She said that at the time of writing the letter her daughter was still asleep, and requested that the complaint be treated as confidential, as she did not wish to have her daughter run the risk of being out with this taxi driver again.

45 The fax report reads as follows:

‘BLANK just woke up and told me that as well as the other problems I’ve already reported, the taxi driver charged her $20 for a trip from BLANK to BLANK. He also insisted that they stop at the service station to get change for a $50 note, leaving the metre running, even though I’d explained when I booked the taxi that my daughter would need change for a $50 note.

As soon as she got in the car he asked who lived at a house where she’d come out of. He asked who lived at the house where she was going to. He asked where she lived, pushing for a specific address. He asked if she’d had sex with her boyfriend. Is her boyfriend good-looking? He was also touching her up and down the arm, driving really slowly.’

46 Passenger’s Account: The daughter’s evidence at hearing was generally consistent with the call and letters from her mother. She gave the following account of the conduct. She said the journey took 20 to 25 minutes. The taxi was going ‘really slow’ and ‘that scared me’ (ts, 27 January 2004, 104). She said that they stopped on the way to get change at a service station, and that had occurred before he started asking questions.

47 The driver, she said, ‘started asking me questions about what house I had come from, and whose house it was, and where I lived and did I have a boyfriend, and where my boyfriend lived, and whose house I was going to, and who was home when I got there. I didn’t know quite how to respond to it, so I just said that I did have a boyfriend, and I was going to my boyfriend’s house, just to try to protect myself.’ She then gave an account of several very instrusive questions (the detail of which we will not set out here) that the driver asked her relating to oral sex (ts 104). She said she did not reply but sought to ignore the questions. She said she had sat in the front passenger seat, and by this stage she was ‘getting scared, so I was sitting as close to the door as I possibly can’ (ts 105). She said ‘he …, watching me the whole time, and it was just very uncomfortable’ (ts 105).

48 She was dropped off at her mother’s place, and she said she was charged $25, although the normal fare was $10, which she knew as she does the trip a lot.

49 In answer to questions from the Tribunal, she said that she could not be sure when she was picked up, but that it might have been around 8 pm (ts 106), and that it was dark. As to the fare, she said it was ‘just under $25’ (ts 108). Mr Haider intervened, and questioned how such a fare for the trip from Long Jetty to The Entrance could be possible. In answer to a further question from Mr Wozniak, she said that when she went into the service station to get change the meter had been left running.

50 Taxi Records: The taxi company’s print out records the job in question, no 246200020, as ‘wanted’ at 20:13:48 and ‘as dispatched’ at the same time to ‘car 474’ and ‘driver no 13657056’ (Mr Haider’s identification number) with ‘meter on’ at 20:17:11 and ‘off’ at 20:23:05.

51 Length of the Journey: The discrepancy between the length of time estimated by the passenger for the journey and the length of time shown on the taxi company records led the original Tribunal to conclude that it could not safely accept the account given by the passenger as to what transpired during the journey.

52 There are clearly problems with aspects of the evidence, especially as to the estimated length of the journey and the fare charged. If the journey time was as recorded, it seems unlikely that a fare of $20 (the initial report) or $25 (the evidence at hearing) could have been charged. The time fits what would, on the passenger’s account, be the usual journey time for such a trip as her estimate of the normal charge, $10.

53 None the less, we are satisfied that a conversation of the kind recounted by the passenger took place. We are satisfied that Mr Haider asked intrusive questions of a personal nature. The initial reports transmitted via her mother and her evidence at hearing was substantially consistent as to what was said to her, and about her daughter’s reaction to the trip. In all significant respects the daughter’s evidence was also consistent with the original reports made by her mother.

Complaint 5

2 August 2003

54 A passenger, a woman of 30 years of age, made a complaint to the Department in relation to the conduct of a taxi driver, then unknown to her, that occurred in the early hours of the morning of Saturday 2 August 2003.

55 The complaint was that during a trip from The Entrance at about 4.30 am the driver asking very personal questions; asked her to lean back from the front seat and close a back door window, looked up her skirt and grabbed her by the arm. In her complaint she described the driver as Pakistani, in his early 30s with a moustache, and said that he worked out of Long Jetty. The Department’s record states that the passenger was unable to give a plate or driver id, but would get back to them if she sees him again.

56 This passenger also gave evidence by phone. She described the incident:

‘I got into the taxi and asked me to do the back window up. So I leaned over and wound then window up, and when I turned around, I seen him looking up my skirt. And then he asked who the man that was waiting out the front of the house was, and wanted to know if he was my boyfriend, and had I kissed him, had I slept with him, and would I be seeing him again. He then grabbed my arm and laughed.’ (ts, 26 February 2004, 31)

57 Her answers to further questions from the Tribunal, seeking to test her evidence, remained consistent with this account.

58 The passenger said she subsequently knew that the driver was Mr Haider, because he had been the driver who came to pick her up in response to a booking she had made for 3 am on 27 September 2003, to be collected outside a night club at The Entrance and taken to Killarney Vale. After she had made the booking, two friends asked her if they could share the taxi. Seeing that there were now three passengers, she said the driver insisted that they pay separate fares. She objected, and the driver told her to get out of the taxi. She said she realised at that point that this was the same driver that she had complained about over an incident on 2 August 2003. Because the driver had previously harassed her she was glad to get out of the taxi and get another one.

59 Taxi company records identified Mr Haider as the driver on 27 September 2003. Mr Haider also acknowledged that he was the driver on this occasion, and tendered a statement from one of the other women who tried to get his taxi that night as part of his evidence; but he denied that he was the driver involved in the journey of 2 August 2003.

60 In answer to questions from the Tribunal, the passenger listed the physical features that caused her to remember him as the same driver (see ts, 26 February 2004, 30-31). The factors she mentioned about the driver’s appearance (to do with the style of his beard, her estimate of his age, and her description of his complexion and possible ethnic category) are consistent with those possessed by Mr Haider and as to his beard, as seen in his official taxi ID photo. There is, we consider, sufficient evidence, taken in conjunction with the clear evidence that he was the driver on the second occasion, to find that Mr Haider was the driver on the first occasion. (The Department did not otherwise rely as part of its case on the matters complained of in respect of the later journey.)

61 As Mr Haider denied that he was the driver on the occasion of the journey of 2 August 2003, we do not have his account of what might have transpired. The passenger’s evidence was consistent and we consider it credible. It closely corresponded to the complaint as it had been to the Department’s complaints’ line just two days after the trip. We accept the passenger’s account of the conversation.

Character Evidence

62 Mr Haider tendered two testimonials. Their authors were not called for cross-examination. They were from three members of the Hoksbergen family of Long Jetty (dated 22 December 2003). They describe Mr Haider as a hard working family man, and state they had always found him courteous, and had never encountered any problems on taxi trips with him. (There are further testimonials on the Department file.)

Suitability to resume employment as a Taxi Driver

63 The question is whether Mr Haider’s continuation as taxi driver is consistent with the ‘purpose of an authority’. Section 33(3) of the Act provides:

‘(3) The purpose of an authority under this Division is to attest:

(a) that the authorised person is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a taxi-cab, and

(b) that the authorised person is considered to have sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive a taxi-cab:

(i) in accordance with the conditions under which the taxi-cab service concerned is operated, and

(ii) in accordance with law and custom.’

64 Section 33F of the Act provides:

‘ 33F Variation, suspension or cancellation of authority

Having regard to the purpose of authorisation under this Division, the Director-General may at any time vary, suspend or cancel any person’s authority under this Division.’

65 Many Tribunal and Appeal Panel decisions have dealt with the considerations that may bear on whether an ‘authorised person is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a taxi-cab’: see generally our earlier decision, Director General, Ministry of Transport -v- Haider (GD) [2004] NSWADTAP 42 at [52]-[76].

66 The issue of what is embraced by the concept of ‘good repute’ is a difficult one. We have dealt with the matter at some length in our earlier decision. On this occasion it is only necessary for us to address the second requirement - whether Mr Haider is ‘a fit and proper person to be the driver of a taxi-cab’.

67 When the Director General first suspended Mr Haider (October 2002), there can, we consider, be no doubt that the Director General’s decision was the correct and preferable one. Mr Haider’s conduct over the short period since he had become a taxi driver had attracted nine complaints, most of them of a very serious kind. Five have now been substantially proven in these proceedings. In that regard, we are satisfied that there is no connection between the various complainants.

68 The complaints depict conduct that would normally cause grave concern to the reasonable member of the travelling public:

(i) seeking to engage female passengers travelling alone at night, especially quite young women, in crude conversations of a sexual nature;

(ii) behaving in an angry way while in charge of a taxi; and

(iii) as a result of these behaviours, placing passengers in fear.

69 Mr Haider offered no explanations for his conduct, and has shown little appreciation of the gravity of the matters alleged against him. Of the four passengers who gave evidence two were highly traumatised (Complaints 3 and 4), while the other two indicated that they had felt uncomfortable and wanted to get out of the taxi as quickly as possible (Complaints 1 and 5). The mother at home, in the case of Complaint 2, spoke of keeping the door closed as it was being banged on by the driver.

70 His denials that he was not the driver involved in the case of three of the incidents (Complaints 2, 4 and 5) were implausible, and cast considerable doubt on whether he is a person whose word could ever be trusted.

71 Mr Haider did, as a result of the original Tribunal decision and until it was set aside, return to the road for a period (February to September 2004). There was no material placed before the Appeal Panel adverse to Mr Haider relating to that period (as noted earlier, the parties agreed that the Appeal Panel only consider the earlier material). While this fact is in Mr Haider’s favour on the question of whether he is now fit to resume driving, we are not confident that the problems revealed by the evidence have been resolved.

72 In our view Mr Haider’s conduct is such that he may need professional counselling or assistance. Mr Haider appears to lack any perception of the gravely intrusive and disturbing nature of the remarks he chose to make to the passengers who gave evidence, all women travelling alone at night in the company of a man they did not know, but trusted because he was a taxi driver. His denials (or failures to recollect) that he was the driver in some of the cases suggest that he is unable to accept responsibility for his actions.

73 The Director General’s decision at the time it was made was the correct and preferable decision; and that remains the case.

Order

1. Application for review dismissed.

2. Decision under review affirmed.