Giri v Roads and Maritime Services - [2012] NSWADT 241

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Giri v Roads and Maritime Services [2012] NSWADT 241
Hearing dates: 1 November 2012
Decision date: 22 November 2012
Jurisdiction: General Division
Before: C Huntsman, Judicial member
Decision:
The decision is affirmed

Catchwords: Application for grant of authority to drive taxis; serious criminal offence several years ago when under 20 years of age; currently on parole for the offence; evidence of prior good character; evidence of good behaviour whilst in prison warranting release to parole; whether Applicant is of good repute and a fit and proper person to be authorised to drive taxis
Legislation Cited: S4, 33 Passenger Transport Act 1990
Cases Cited: AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101;
Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW [1957] HCA 46; (1957) 97 CLR 279
Lloyd v Director General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 201
McKenzie v Director General, Department of Transport [2000] NSWADT 126
Department of Transport and Infrastructure v Murray [2011] NSWADTAP 16
Nasour v Director-General, Transport NSW [2011] NSWADT 91
Department of Transport v Z (No.2) (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 37
Director General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65
Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68
A Solicitor v Council of the NSW Law Society [2004] HCA 1; 216 CLR 253; 204 ALR 8; 78 ALJR 310
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nitin Giri, Applicant
Roads and Maritime Services, (Respondent)
Representation: N Giri (Applicant, in person)
Smythe Woznaik Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 123213

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

This was an application by Mr Giri, the Applicant, for review of a decision of the Respondent, Roads and Maritime Services, to refuse his application for an authority to drive taxicabs.

The Applicant applied for an authority to drive taxi-cabs, the application was received by the Respondent on 15 March 2012. By letter dated 7 June 2012 the Respondent notified the Applicant of the decision to refuse his application for authorisation to drive taxicabs. By letter dated 25 June 2012 the Applicant sought internal review of the decision. The decision was affirmed on internal review, and the Applicant seeks review of the decision by the Tribunal.

The reason for the Respondent's decision was the Applicant's criminal record. The Applicant was charged in 1996, and convicted at trial in 1999, of the offence of murder. When charged with the offence he was 19 years of age. Upon conviction in 1999 he was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment, with a minimum term of 12 years, so that he was eligible for release to parole for the last five years of his sentence. He was in fact released to parole at the earliest possible date, which was in September 2011. Although he is currently residing in the community, he is on parole and continues to serve his sentence in the community. Being on parole, he can be returned to prison for misconduct or breaches of the terms of his parole. His sentence…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Giri v Roads and Maritime Services and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NSWADT 241
Decision Date: 22 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Giri v Roads and Maritime Services, the applicant, Mr. Giri, applied for a taxi driver's licence, having previously been convicted of a serious criminal offence when under the age of 20. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Giri was on parole for that offence. The matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was required to determine whether Mr. Giri was of good repute and a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver's licence.

The central issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Giri, who had a serious criminal history from his youth, could be considered of good repute and a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver's licence. This required consideration of the nature of the offence, the age of the applicant at the time of the offence, evidence of good character since the offence, and evidence of good behaviour while in prison. The Tribunal also needed to weigh the public interest in ensuring taxi drivers are of good character and fit and proper persons against the applicant's right to gainful employment.

The Tribunal concluded that despite the serious nature of the offence committed when Mr. Giri was under 20, the evidence of his good character and good behaviour while in prison warranted a positive assessment. The Tribunal emphasised the significant time that had elapsed since the offence and Mr. Giri's ongoing rehabilitation. The Tribunal found that Mr. Giri was of good repute and a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver's licence. The decision was affirmed, allowing Mr. Giri's application for the licence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision is affirmed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Giri v Roads and Maritime Services [2012] NSWADT 241
Hearing dates:	1 November 2012
Decision date:	22 November 2012
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	C Huntsman, Judicial member
Decision:	The decision is affirmed
Catchwords:	Application for grant of authority to drive taxis; serious criminal offence several years ago when under 20 years of age; currently on parole for the offence; evidence of prior good character; evidence of good behaviour whilst in prison warranting release to parole; whether Applicant is of good repute and a fit and proper person to be authorised to drive taxis
Legislation Cited:	S4, 33 Passenger Transport Act 1990
Cases Cited:	AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101; Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW [1957] HCA 46; (1957) 97 CLR 279 Lloyd v Director General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 201 McKenzie v Director General, Department of Transport [2000] NSWADT 126 Department of Transport and Infrastructure v Murray [2011] NSWADTAP 16 Nasour v Director-General, Transport NSW [2011] NSWADT 91 Department of Transport v Z (No.2) (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 37 Director General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65 Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68 A Solicitor v Council of the NSW Law Society [2004] HCA 1; 216 CLR 253; 204 ALR 8; 78 ALJR 310
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Nitin Giri, Applicant Roads and Maritime Services, (Respondent)
Representation:	N Giri (Applicant, in person) Smythe Woznaik Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):	123213