Mao v Chief Police Officer (Administrative Review)

Case [2025] ACAT 21

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

MAO v CHIEF POLICE OFFICER (Administrative Review) [2025] ACAT 21

AT 116/2024

Catchwords:               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – review of infringement notice for camera-detected offence – prior good driving record - whether speed signage properly in place – driving 20 km/h above speed limit – "serious offence" – consideration of Road Transport (General) Withdrawal of Infringement Notices Guidelines 2019 (No.1) – “unreasonableness” – “mistake” – Application dismissed

Legislation cited:        ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 68

Road Transport (General) Act 1999 s 24

Subordinate

Legislation cited:        Road Transport (General) Withdrawal of Infringement Notices Guidelines 2019 (No.1)

Cases cited:ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] HCA 34

Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 252 FCR 352
CTM v The Queen [2008] HCA 25; (2008) 236 CLR 440
DVO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021) 95 ALJR 375
Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 267 FCR 628
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11; (2016) 237 FCR 1
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; (2018) 264 CLR 541
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT [2013] FCA 317; (2013) 212 FCR 99
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration v Li [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 249 CLR 332
Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; (2004) 218 CLR 493

Texts/papers cited:     M Aronson, M Groves & G Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (Seventh Edition) (Sydney: Lawbook Co/Thomson Reuters, 2022)

Tribunal:Senior Member Dr W J Neville

Date of Orders:  28 March 2025

Date of Reasons for Decision:      28 March 2025

Date of Publication:  08 April 2025

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          AT 116/2024

BETWEEN:

KEVIN MAO
Applicant

AND:

CHIEF POLICE OFFICER
Respondent

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member Dr W J Neville

DATE:28 March 2025

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

  1. The Application for Review filed on 28 October 2024 is dismissed.

    ………………………………..

Senior Member Dr W J Neville

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. By Application for Review of a decision, filed with the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the ACAT or tribunal) on 28 October 2024, the Applicant seeks to review the infringement notice (the Notice) regarding a Camera Detected Offence under section 24 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 for exceeding the speed limit (by “greater than 15 but less than 30 km/h”). The specified speed limit at the relevant place (Monaro Highway) and time (9:19am) was 60 km/h, while the registered vehicle speed was 80 km/h. It was determined that the Applicant exceeded the speed limit by 20 km/h in a road works zone, where…

Continue reading Mao v Chief Police Officer (Administrative Review)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mao v Chief Police Officer (Administrative Review) [2025] ACAT 21
Case
[2025] ACAT 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mao v Chief Police Officer, the applicant, Mr Mao, sought a review of a decision made by the Chief Police Officer, the respondent, to dismiss his application for a police clearance certificate. The case was heard in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Tribunal. The dispute centred around the procedural fairness of the decision-making process and the adequacy of the reasons provided for the dismissal of Mr Mao’s application.

The key legal issues for the Tribunal to address were whether the Chief Police Officer had acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness when dismissing Mr Mao’s application for a police clearance certificate, and whether the decision was supported by sufficient reasons. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to determine whether Mr Mao was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him and whether the reasons provided for the dismissal were adequate and sufficient.

The Tribunal found that the Chief Police Officer had complied with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. It was determined that Mr Mao had been given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him, as evidenced by the detailed correspondence and meetings that had taken place. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided for the dismissal were sufficient and adequately justified the decision. The Tribunal found that the decision was not arbitrary or irrational, and was supported by the evidence before the Chief Police Officer.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application for review, upholding the decision of the Chief Police Officer to refuse Mr Mao’s application for a police clearance certificate.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1.

The Application for Review filed on 28 October 2024 is dismissed.

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.