DT & Anor v Department of Justice and Attorney-General - Industry Licensing Unit & Anor

In the matter of DT and another versus the Department of Justice and Attorney-General - Industry Licensing Unit and another, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with reviewing a decision to refuse a licence. The applicants, DT and another, challenged the refusal based on the information relied upon by the Police Commissioner in making an adverse security determination. The dispute centred on the correct categorisation of the information as a criminal intelligence report or other criminal information under section 20(3) of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2013.

The court was required to determine whether the information exhibited to the affidavit of Superintendent Waker, dated 29 September 2014, was correctly categorised as criminal intelligence reports or other criminal information under section 20(3) of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2013. This involved interpreting the meaning of 'criminal intelligence report' and 'other criminal information' in the context of the Act. The court needed to consider whether the information met the criteria for being classified as such, and if the Police Commissioner had the authority to rely on it in making the adverse security determination.

The Tribunal found that the information exhibited to the affidavit of Superintendent Waker was correctly categorised as criminal intelligence reports or other criminal information under section 20(3) of the Act. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the definitions and criteria set out in the Act for categorising such information. The parties were ordered to file and exchange the material they intended to rely on at the hearing, excluding the specified section 20(3) material. The hearing of the review was to be set down at a later date, and the publication of certain information was prohibited to protect the identity of the applicants.

The Tribunal made several orders, including that the information in question was correctly categorised, and that the parties were to file and exchange specific material before the hearing. The court also prohibited the publication of certain information to protect the applicants' identities. The hearing of the review was to be scheduled at a later date.