Doughty v Commissioner for Fair Trading - [2014] ACAT 12

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

DOUGHTY v COMMISSIONER FOR FAIR TRADING
(Occupational Discipline) [2014] ACAT 12

OR 43 of 2013
Catchwords: OCCUPATIONAL DISCIPLINE – SECURITY EMPLOYEE LICENCE – conviction of applicant for common assault - suitability criteria for licence: conviction for an offence in “stated circumstances” is disqualification - consideration of public interest: criminal conviction vis-a-vis the fact of no other convictions, remorse and cooperation with police, positive attributes of applicant and offence being one off situation

Legislation: Security Industry Act 2003, ss 21, 23 and 37

Cases: Commissioner for Fair Trading & Joshua Quinton
[2011] ACAT 10

Soby v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 ASR 70, at 74
Wade v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2011] ACAT 71

Tribunal: Ms E. Symons, Presidential Member

Date of Orders: 26 February 2014
Date of Reasons for Decision: 26 February 2014

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) NO: OR 13/43

RE: RICHARD JAMES DOUGHTY
Applicant

AND: THE COMMISSIONER FOR FAIR TRADING
Respondent

Tribunal: Ms E. Symons, General President

Date of Order : 26 February 2014

ORDERS

The Tribunal Orders that:

The Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s application for a security employee licence Class 1C is set aside and a decision to issue the Applicant with a security employee licence Class 1C for one year is substituted.

………………………………..
Ms E. Symons

Presidential Member
REASONS FOR DECISION

The following reasons for decision explain why the Tribunal has made orders setting aside the respondent’s decision to refuse Mr Doughty’s application for an employee security licence Class 1C and to issue the applicant with a security employee licence Class 1C for one year, as sought in his application to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has concluded that in applying the public interest test and assessing the risks to the community, Mr Doughty’s criminal conviction and fine of $300 was a one-off incident. The Tribunal found there were some mitigating circumstances surrounding this conviction and that he was genuinely remorseful for his conduct. The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Doughty had been employed as a security guard since 2008; his employers had provided letters of support which set out his positive attributes and, in the case of SNP Security, stated they were prepared to re-employ him if his licence was renewed.

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Richard James Doughty, (“the applicant”), lodged an application (“the Application”) with the Tribunal on 4 November 2013, pursuant to section 37 of the Security Industry Act 2003 (“SIA”), in which he sought review of the decision by the respondent, the Commissioner for Fair Trading (the Commissioner), dated

25 October 2013 to refuse his application for a Security Industry Employee Licence.
Pursuant to Directions made on 22 November 2013, the Commissioner filed:
(a)findings on Material Questions of Fact and Statement of Reasons;
(b)a copy of the Application;
(c)
a copy of letter from the Commissioner to the applicant dated

25 October 2013;
(d)a copy of Regulatory Advisory Committee Submission;
(e)a copy of the Application to renew for one year a Security Licence for an Individual Subclass 1C - ‘Act as a Crowd Controller’;
(f)a copy of Statement of Facts from the Australian Federal Police ;
(g)a copy of letter of Support from Theresa de Castella of Deeks Bakery;
(h)a copy of a letter of support from unidentified person;
(i)copies of two letters of support from Jayde Boljkovic, Operations Support Officer of SNP Security;
(j)a copy of letter from the applicant;
(k)a copy of National Police Certificate dated 20 September 2013;
(l)
a copy of letter to the applicant from the Commissioner dated

24 September 2013;
(m)a copy of ACT Office of Regulatory Services Alert Note 24/09/2013; and
(n)a copy of the applicant’s driver licence and Medicare Card.
On 16 December 2013, the Tribunal made further directions setting a timetable for the parties to file and serve all documentation on which they wanted to rely and set the matter down for hearing on 17 February 2014. In compliance with these Directions, the applicant filed, on 23 December 2013, -
(a)his statement in support of his application (Exhibit A1);
(b)
a document entitled “Facts of Miss Zora Grgic’s personal protection of

Mr Paul John Thomas Henderson” (Exhibit A2); and
(c)a document entitled “Facts 2 on the personal protection orders (Exhibit A3).”
On 6 January 2014, the applicant filed:
(a)an email from him to the Tribunal dated 6 January 2014 (Exhibit A4(a)); and
(b)a letter of support from Jaimee Hunt, manager of the Phoenix Pub Canberra (Exhibit A4(b)).
The Commissioner filed, on 17 January 2014:
(a)Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions; and
(b)witness statement of Mr Jon Noel Quiggin, Acting Director, Office of Regulatory Services (Exhibit R1).
The applicant represented himself at the hearing on 17 February 2014. The Commissioner was represented by Ms Sarelle Woodward, Solicitor with ACT Government Solicitor. The applicant and his fiancée, Ms Zora Grgic, gave evidence and were cross examined. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision.

THE EVIDENCE
The applicant’s evidence

The applicant gave evidence on affirmation. He said that he has held a security industry employee licence (“licence”) since April 2008. He was born on 12 September 1985 and is now aged 28 years.
On 23 August 2013, he was convicted of common assault and fined $300 in the ACT Magistrates Court.
The applicant described the situation which had resulted in the common assault charge against him as “a one-off situation”. His girlfriend, Zora Grgic, who is now his fiancée, had been stalked and harassed by a Mr Paul Henderson in January 2013. The stalking included Mr Henderson sending her sexually explicit, disgusting and crude SMS messages. He continued this behaviour for about three to four weeks and on occasions sent as many as 20 SMS messages in a night. Mr Henderson also sent explicit, crude and offensive messages to Ms Grgic by posting the messages on her Facebook page. In mid January 2013, Mr Henderson grabbed Ms Grgic in an Erindale car park and tried to force her into a car. Three bystanders told him to let her go and said they would call the police. Mr Henderson let Ms Grgic go.

Mr Henderson’s sister had been one of Ms Grgic’s friends.
The applicant said he took Ms Grgic to speak with the police who recommended she obtain a personal protection order. She applied for an order on 8 February 2013 and was given a hearing date in March 2013. Mr Henderson asked that the hearing date be changed saying that he would be overseas in March. He then applied for and obtained a protection order against Ms Grgic when Ms Grgic was not aware of that hearing date. The applicant said he believed Mr Henderson told lies in his application for a protection order. While these proceedings were on foot,

Mr Henderson had threatened, on Facebook, to tear the applicant to pieces and to knock his head off his shoulders.
The applicant said that Ms Grgic suffers from cerebral palsy and epilepsy. She takes prescription medication for epilepsy. She attended Woden Special School and worked for Koomari for 12 years doing gardening. When she was receiving the SMS and Facebook messages from Mr Henderson, the applicant said he saw Ms Grgic become very distressed and suffer epileptic seizures. The applicant said that he was very concerned about the effect of Mr Henderson’s behaviour on Ms Grgic’s health.
The applicant told the Tribunal that Ms Grgic’s father passed away in hospital about a week before the incident in May 2013 which resulted in the common assault charge. He had observed the profound impact of her father’s death on Ms Grgic and her epilepsy. He said that Ms Grgic had a ‘breakdown’ and had to receive counselling. The seizures came back. At times he had had to hold Ms Grgic while she is experiencing a seizure.
On 29 May 2013, he and Ms Grgic were in Woden Plaza Food Court when he spotted Mr Henderson sitting at another table. When he saw Mr Henderson the applicant said that he was angry and disgusted at Mr Henderson’s conduct to Ms Grgic and he ‘snapped’. He approached Mr Henderson from behind and, with an open hand or open hands, he pushed him once around his shoulders. Mr Henderson fell off the chair. He then said to Mr Henderson, “How dare you do that to Zora and how dare you try to fucking rape her.”
In answer to a question, he told the Tribunal that part of his anger was that he saw “Mr Henderson getting away with it.” He felt very protective of Ms Grgic. He said in his statement (Exhibit A1) that he was not happy with the court helping Mr Henderson more than Ms Grgic in relation to the protection orders. He felt angry with the police as they had not done anything when informed that Mr Henderson was breaching Ms Grgic’s protection order by being in Woden Plaza food court.
The applicant said that, after the incident referred to in paragraph 15 above, he waited at the food court until the police arrived. He admitted that he had pushed Mr Henderson off his chair and said words to Mr Henderson. He told the police that he was very sorry for his actions and regretted what had happened.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity after he was summonsed to appear in the ACT Magistrates Court.
He promised the Tribunal that he would not act in such a way again. He said he should not have taken the matter into his own hands. As a security guard, he knew the penalty for common assault could be up to five years’ jail. He further said that he had made a big mistake. His actions had cost him his job as a security guard –the job he loved. He had to pay the fine and lawyer’s fees. Since the incident, he had thought about how he could have dealt differently with the situation and avoided the outcome. He told the Tribunal that he could have, and should have, walked into another shop, away from Mr Henderson.
Ms Grgic and he are getting married on 15 April 2014. They are expecting their first child in September 2014. While he currently has casual employment as a baker for about 20 to 30 hours a week, Mr Doughty’s hours of work are mainly between 11pm and 7am. He said that he had worked in security since 2008 and that although he is a qualified baker, he wants to return to the security industry. He could obtain security employment for up to 50 hours a week if he was licensed. He would be able to work more ‘normal’ work hours so that he could look after Ms Grgic and assist Ms Grgic with their baby.
The applicant said that he has no other convictions. There has not been a complaint about him using excessive force during his work as a security guard. The incident was a regrettable one-off event.
In his past employment he had worked as a deli assistant for Woolworths, butcher’s assistant at Eco Meats, as a kitchen hand at the Convention Centre, as a baker/pastry chef at Deek’s Bakery and for TTM Security, ISS Security and SNP Security. He said that he enjoyed working with the public and working in a team. He described himself as honest, reliable, courteous, happy and easy going. He did volunteer work at the National Zoo and Aquarium in 2004 and, last October, applied to do volunteer work there again.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he is aware that when working in the security industry he needs to keep calm and have good communication skills. He also said that he is reliable and does his security work ‘by the book’ and explained that this meant being polite, honest, being able to talk people ‘down’ and giving warnings of consequences to people.
The applicant, further, said that he had spoken to SNP Security about the criminal charge and his application to the Tribunal. SNP Security is prepared to employ him full time if he is able to obtain his licence. He also spoke to the Manager of the Phoenix Club, Jaimee Hunt, and obtained a letter of support from her. He understood that, notwithstanding the criminal charge and conviction, he could also obtain work at the Phoenix Club where he had previously worked.
In cross examination, he conceded that he would not be unemployed if he did not get his security employee licence back.

Zora Grgic’s evidence

The applicant’s fiancée, Ms Grgic, gave evidence and was cross examined.
She said that “Rich had never abused me” and described the applicant as ‘very calm’, ‘nice and friendly’, and ‘very supportive’. She said that “security love him” as he is “always doing his job properly”. When her mother died, and then her father died, the applicant had been very supportive of her. She confirmed that her father had died about a week before the assault on Mr Henderson.
She was in the Woden Food Court when the applicant assaulted Mr Henderson and saw what happened. She said that the applicant used his two open hands to push

Mr Henderson.
She confirmed that the applicant and she are to marry on 15 April 2014 and that they are expecting a baby in September 2014. She said that the hours the applicant was working as a baker were from 11pm to 7 am and were “very bad hours”.

The letters of support

In the letter from the Phoenix Club Manager, Jaimee Hunt, filed at the Tribunal on 6 January 2014, Ms Hunt states that the applicant has worked for the club as a security guard over the past couple of years and in her experience “Richard has been a good security guard, resolving any issues in a civil and mild mannered way.”

Ms Hunt then states “We have never encountered any incident where Richard had become aggressive or retaliated against patrons.” Ms Hunt concludes by stating that the Club would gladly accept Richard as their security guard on any night and would recommend him to other establishments due to his friendly demeanour.
In a letter from SNP Security’s Operations Support Officer, Ms Jayde Boljkovic, dated 14 October 2013, Ms Boljkovic states that the applicant has been a casual employee with SNP since May 2013 and that“[w]e are aware of Richard’s offence and are still willing to have Richard as an SNP employee.”
In an earlier reference letter dated 25 September 2013, Ms Boljkovic states that “Richard has proven himself to be Honest, Reliable and a friendly member of our team at the Ginninderra Labour Club.”
In an undated letter from Deeks Bakery Managing Director, Theresa de Castella, she details the applicant’s employment there from May 2006 to September 2012 and the completion of his apprenticeship in Retail Baking. She then provides information in the form of a character reference describing the applicant variously as ‘bright’, ‘intelligent’, ‘a quick learner’, ‘having a sense of humour’, ‘quite competitive’, ‘having a great capacity to learn and take on challenges and new roles’, ‘diligent’ and a ‘cheerful and confident young man’.
The final letter is undated and, although signed, the author’s identity is not readily apparent. However, a mobile phone number is given in the letter for contacting the author. It is a character reference and the author states he or she has known the applicant since 2004 and considers him to be a close friend.

The Commissioner

The Commissioner relied on the witness statement of Jonathan Noel Quiggin dated 17 January 2014, which sets out the Commissioner’s involvement in considering the application for renewal of the applicant’s ‘Class 1C’ security industry employee licence.

Relevant legislation

The general suitability criteria are set out in section 21 of the SIA. A copy this section is set out at the end of the decision.
In considering this application, subsection 21(2)(a) relevantly states:
(2) Also, the commissioner for fair trading must not issue or vary a licence if—
(a) within the 10 years before the day the application is made, the applicant has been convicted of 1 or more of the offences mentioned in subsection (3), in the ACT or elsewhere; or

Subsection 21 (3)(a) relevantly states
(3) The offences are as follows:
(a) if the stated circumstances apply—an offence involving assault, violence against a person, dishonesty or theft;
Subsection 21(5) sets out the “stated circumstances” :
"stated circumstances", for an offence for which an applicant has been convicted, means that—
(a) a penalty is imposed on the applicant for the offence; and
(b) the penalty is imprisonment, a fine of $500 or more, or both.
Pursuant to subsection 21(1)(a)(vi) the Commissioner must not issue or vary a licence unless satisfied that-
it is otherwise in the public interest to issue a licence to the applicant.
Section 23 refers to public interest and states in subsections (1) and (2) –
23Public interest
(1)   In deciding whether it is in the public interest to issue a licence to an applicant, the commissioner for fair trading must consider whether the applicant has—
(a)    committed a relevant offence, whether or not the applicant has been convicted of the offence; or
(b)    been convicted or found guilty of any other offence (other than an offence mentioned in section 21 (3)) that the commissioner believes on reasonable grounds affects the person’s suitability to hold a licence.
(2)   The commissioner for fair trading may consider any other relevant matter to decide whether it is in the public interest to issue a licence to an applicant.

The applicant’s submissions

The applicant asked the Tribunal to take into consideration that he has no other convictions; that he cooperated with police following the incident; that he expressed his regret to the police; that he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity; and that this was a one-off situation.
He noted that the amount of the fine was $300.00, which is less than the $500.00 “benchmark” set by subsection 21(5) of the SIA.
He submitted that the incident occurred because he was angry at and disgusted by Mr Henderson’s offensive conduct to Ms Grgic, who is now his fiancée. He had been in a relationship with her since October 2012, knew she suffered from cerebral palsy and observed the effects of Mr Henderson’s conduct on Ms Grgic’s epilepsy. He conceded that he thought that Mr Henderson got away with his conduct to Ms Grgic and when he saw him sitting in the food court he “snapped” and pushed him from behind. He said that he should have known better than to take the situation into his own hands as he is not an angry or violent person and that he was aware of the penalty for assault.
The applicant referred to the evidence he had given of his experiences while handling conflict during his employment as a security guard, and submitted that he has demonstrated that he is able to keep calm, talk people down from escalating situations and be polite and patient. He reiterated that he is hard working, reliable, and courteous, has customer service skills, enjoys working with the public and working in a team, and hopes to get higher in the security industry.

The Commissioner’s Submissions

The Commissioner contends, and it is not in dispute, that the applicant has been convicted of common assault in contravention of section 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 which is a relevant offence as defined in the Dictionary to the SIA. It is also not in dispute that the incident took place in a public place and that the victim was pushed from behind.
The Commissioner further contends[1], taking into consideration Section 23(2) of the SIA[2], that the circumstances in relation to the conviction are sufficiently serious that a licence must be refused; the test for granting a licence “that it has to be in the public interest” is a high one ; the question of good standing is vital; and it was not in the public interest to grant the applicant a licence on the basis that:
(a)the applicant has a recent offence of common assault,
(b)the applicant does not meet the requirements and responsibilities that a security guard must adhere to because the applicant chose to respond with violence to the victim’s [Mr Henderson] behaviour, and
(c)a security officer must be a person of probity with the relevant capacity, must be worthy of public confidence and have the skills and experience when carrying out his duties as a crowd controller.
[1] Commissioner’s Statement of Facts and Contentions, [7] and [8]
[2] Subsection 23(2) The commissioner for fair trading may consider any other relevant matter to decide whether it is in the public interest to issue a licence to an applicant.

The Commissioner also contends that the applicant is currently employed as a baker for up to 30 hours a week, and if he were to return to the security industry his evidence was that he would work up to 50 hours a week, which was inconsistent with his evidence that he wanted to be able to spend more time at home with his child after its birth.

Consideration

In Commissioner for Fair Trading & Joshua Quinton[3] (Quinton case), which concerned an application for a security licence, the tribunal considered the public interest test and stated[4] that the fact that the tribunal must, in terms of our legislation, take into account criminal convictions (although not traffic convictions) is a vital part of this equation. The tribunal then referred to Walters J’s observations in Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board[5]which set out the principles which regulatory bodies that granted licences had to take into account:
…it seems to me that the object of the legislation is twofold: first to grant, regulate and supervise the conduct of those who engage in the sort of work falling within the ambit of the Act, and secondly, to ensure that those to whom licences are granted are persons of probity who have the capacity to carry out those duties and responsibilities with which licences invest them.
Any member of the public engaging the services of, or having business dealing with, a person holding a licence as a commercial agent, a commercial sub-agent or a process server, is entitled to expect that person to be of good standing in the community and to possess sufficient skills, experience and proficiency to enable him to discharge the functions which he is licensed to perform.
[3] [2011] ACAT 10
[4] at [50]
[5] (1979) 22 SASR 70, at 74
In the Quinton case, the tribunal rejected the view that the interest of the public should be interpreted to include consideration of an individual’s right to work.
In Wade v Commissioner for Fair Trading[6], the tribunal also considered an application for a security licence for a crowd controller and the public interest test. Mr Wade had an extensive prior criminal history and that tribunal was satisfied that it was not in the public interest to issue him with a licence as his extensive criminal history would undermine his credibility, his authority, and confidence in his reliability and in his ability to appreciate the seriousness of the offending behavior of others.
[6] [2011] ACAT 71
In this matter, the applicant gave his evidence in an open way. He has, from the earliest opportunity, co-operated with the police, made appropriate admissions to the assault and told them that he was very sorry for his actions and regretted what had happened. He has maintained his regret. He had thought about how he could have better handled the situation and told the Tribunal that he should have gone into a shop, away from the victim.
He explained to the Tribunal the unfortunate history between Ms Grgic and the victim in January, February and March 2013 and the impact of this, and of

Ms Grgic’s loss of her father in May 2013, on her epilepsy. While this explanation might in some way show the heightened emotions at that time, it cannot justify the applicant taking the matter into his own hands and it certainly does not justify the applicant using violence. While it was clear that only the victim was the focus of the assault, the assault occurred in a public place.
The issue for the Tribunal is to determine whether, taking the conviction into consideration, it is in the public interest to grant the applicant the security licence Class 1C.
The Tribunal has considered the Regulatory Advisory Committee Submission, a submission made within the office of Office of Regulatory Services (ORS), and notes that an employee of the respondent, after listing the factors warranting the ORS’s decision, recommended that the applicant’s licence be renewed stating “As Mr Doughty’s behaviour appears to be a one off incident it is considered that the risk factors involved in renewing his licence are low.”
However, the Committee (comprising nine personnel) recommended that the delegate refuse to renew the applicant’s security employee licence Class 1C. That committee expressed concern about the applicant overreacting to provocation in a crowd control situation, and expressed serious doubt about whether he had the capacity to stay calm and measured in the face of provocation by unruly and alcohol affected patrons. Although accepting there may have been some mitigating circumstances, the committee noted the applicant chose to respond with violence to the victim’s behaviour. Upon weighing up the risks and the public interest test, the Committee considered the applicant’s behaviour raised questions of whether he was a person of probity and had the capacity to carry out duties and responsibilities with which a security licensee is invested.
Having considered all of the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the assault resulting in the conviction was a one-off incident. The applicant had held a security employee licence Class 1C since 2008. The letters of support from his previous security employers referred to his positive attributes - his honesty, reliability, being a friendly team member, being a good security guard, resolving issues in a civil and mild mannered way, and never having encountered an incident where he had become aggressive or retaliated against patrons.
His behaviour at the time of the offence seems quite out of character. The Tribunal noted that after the assault he was remorseful and cooperative with the police. This behaviour seems more in keeping with the positive attributes referred to in the previous paragraph.
The Tribunal has weighed up the public interest and risks to the community and finds that, while his criminal conviction is a relevant factor against renewing his licence, the positive attributes referred to above are also relevant factors. He has no prior criminal history.
On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient skills, experience and proficiency to enable him to discharge the functions of a security guard for crowd control. It appeared to the Tribunal that he has learned an important and costly lesson. His promise that such behaviour will not occur again is noted.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s application is successful. The respondent’s decision is set aside and the applicant is to be issued a security employee licence Class 1C for a period of one year.
.................................

Ms E. Symons
Presidential Member

LEGISLATION

SECURITY INDUSTRY ACT 2003

37Applications for review
The following may apply to the ACAT for a review of a reviewable decision:
(a) an entity mentioned in schedule 1, column 4 in relation to the decision;
(b) any other person whose interests are affected by the decision.
NoteIf a form is approved under the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 for the application, the form must be used.

21General suitability criteria
(1)   The commissioner for fair trading must not issue or vary a licence unless—
(a)    satisfied—
(i)about the applicant’s identity; and
(ii)   that the applicant is eligible to hold the licence; and
NoteEligibility for employee, trainer and employee temporary visitor licences is dealt with in s 24.

(iii)   for a licence other than a temporary visitor licence—that the applicant has satisfactorily completed a training course, or has experience or other training that is equivalent, or substantially equivalent, to completion of a training course, prescribed by regulation for the licence applied for; and
(iv)   for an application for an employee licence to do 1 or more of the things mentioned in section 13 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (h)—that an employee organisation has given the applicant the information prescribed by regulation in relation to workplace rights and responsibilities (workplace information); and
(v)that the applicant satisfies any condition prescribed by regulation for the licence; and
(vi)   that it is otherwise in the public interest to issue a licence to the applicant; and
(vii)   for a master temporary visitor licence—that the applicant holds a full licence (however described) under the law of a State to employ or provide a person to carry on the activity authorised under the licence; and
(viii) for an employee temporary visitor licence—that the applicant holds a full licence (however described) under the law of a State to do the activity authorised under the licence; and

(b) the applicant—
(i)if the applicant is an individual—is an adult; and
(ii) if competency standards are prescribed under the regulations—has satisfied the standards.

(2)   Also, the commissioner for fair trading must not issue or vary a licence if—
(a)    within the 10 years before the day the application is made, the applicant has been convicted of 1 or more of the offences mentioned in subsection (3), in the ACT or elsewhere; or
(b)    within the 5 years before the day the application is made, the applicant has been found guilty (but not convicted) of 1 or more of the offences mentioned in subsection (3), in the ACT or elsewhere.
(3)   The offences are as follows:
(a)    if the stated circumstances apply—an offence involving assault, violence against a person, dishonesty or theft;
(b)    if the stated circumstances apply—an offence relating to the possession, storage or use of a firearm or other weapon;
(c)    if the stated circumstances apply—an offence, other than for possession, involving a controlled drug, controlled plant or controlled precursor within the meaning of the Criminal Code 2002;
(d)    an offence involving robbery;
(e)    an offence against the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cwlth), schedule, part 5.3 (Terrorism);
(f)    an offence committed outside the ACT involving terrorism that is an offence against a law of the place where the offence is committed.
(4)   This section is subject to section 26 (Temporary licences).
(5)   In this section:
applicant—
(a)    for an application for a master licence or master temporary visitor licence—includes a close associate of the applicant; and
(b)    if the applicant is a corporation—includes each executive officer of the corporation; and
(c)    if the applicant is a partnership—includes each partner.
close associate—see section 22.
executive officer, of a corporation, means a person, by whatever name called and whether or not the person is a director of the corporation, who is concerned with, or takes part in, the corporation’s management.
stated circumstances, for an offence for which an applicant has been convicted, means that—
(a)    a penalty is imposed on the applicant for the offence; and
(b)    the penalty is imprisonment, a fine of $500 or more, or both.

23Public interest
(1)   In deciding whether it is in the public interest to issue a licence to an applicant, the commissioner for fair trading must consider whether the applicant has—
(a)    committed a relevant offence, whether or not the applicant has been convicted of the offence; or
(b)    been convicted or found guilty of any other offence (other than an offence mentioned in section 21 (3)) that the commissioner believes on reasonable grounds affects the person’s suitability to hold a licence.
Example—par (b)
an offence involving violence against an animal
Note   An example is part of the Act, is not exhaustive and may extend, but does not limit, the meaning of the provision in which it appears (see Legislation Act, s 126 and s 132).

(2) The commissioner for fair trading may consider any other relevant matter to decide whether it is in the public interest to issue a licence to an applicant.

Examples—matters to be considered
1a police certificate accompanying an application under s 17 (3)
2information collected under s 20
3if an applicant mentioned in s 18 (2) failed to give the commissioner a certified copy of the applicant’s criminal history record from a foreign country as requested by the commissioner, and the applicant has not given the commissioner any other information or documents about the applicant’s probity
4if the applicant has been subject to a final order under the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008