Ivanovski v Director General, Department of Transport

[2001] NSWADT 136

CITATION:	Ivanovski v Director General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 136
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Metodija Ivanovski RESPONDENT Director General, Department of Transport
FILE NUMBER:	013063
HEARING DATES:	23/05/2001
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	05/23/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	07/31/2001
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Passenger Transport Act - taxi driver - cancellation of authority - Taxi driver - cancellation of authority
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT W Ward, barrister RESPONDENT A Wozniak, solicitor
ORDERS:	Ex tempore decision on 23 May 2001; 1 The decision of the Director General of February 2001 is set aside; 2 The decision is substituted with the following:; The applicant's authority be suspended until 1 August 2001

Ex Tempore

1 This is a brief outline of the reasons for my decision, and I do not intend to issue further reasons unless a request is received.

2 The issue for me to determine in respect of Mr Ivanovski's application is whether the Director General of Transport made the correct and preferable decision in cancelling Mr Ivanovski's driver's authority in February of this year. I note that that decision was by way of internal review, and sets aside an earlier decision of the Department to suspend the applicant's authority.

3 Before me in this matter is the Department's detailed file, in relation to the applicant, and a number of testimonials tendered on his behalf. The Department's file shows that eight complaints have been made in relation to Mr Ivanovski. The most serious of these is the attempted bribe of officers of the Department that occurred on 24 February last year.

4 This is a most serious complaint, conducted in the course of work for the purpose for which the authority was granted. Mr Ivanovski concedes that he did attempt to offer a bribe, but says in evidence that he was under pressure at the time. I am satisfied, while being under pressure is no excuse, on the basis of the evidence before me today that Mr Ivanovski now acknowledges the seriousness of this matter, and is remorseful for his acts.

5 I note that while Mr Ivanovski's record is not unblemished, that the bribe incident is the most serious complaint made against him, and does not appear to be characteristic of his behaviour. Before me are nine testimonials which attest to Mr Ivanovski's good reputation within the community. They are impressive testimonials and have played some significant part in my decision.

6 Having considered all the circumstances surrounding this matter, I am not of the view that the correct and preferable decision is to cancel the applicant's authority, nor am I of the view given the seriousness of the complaint in relation to the bribe that his authority should be immediately returned.

7 I therefore make the following orders:

(1) The decision of the Director General of February 2001 is set aside;
(2) The decision is substituted with the following:
The applicant's authority be suspended until 1 August 2001.