Mazurani v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service

[2000] NSWADT 27

CITATION:	Mazurani -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 27
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT James Mazurani RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales
FILE NUMBER:	993287
HEARING DATES:	13/03/00
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	03/13/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	03/21/2000
BEFORE:	Hennessy N (Deputy President)
APPLICATION:	Security Industry Act - security industry licence - revocation or suspension of licence - Security industry licence - revocation or suspension of licence
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Security Industry Act 1997
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT J Tunks, prosecutor
ORDERS:	1. The decision of the Commissioner of Police to revoke the applicant’s security industry licence is affirmed.

Introduction

1 On 24 December 1999, Mr Mazurani applied to the Tribunal for a review of a decision by the Commissioner of Police, to revoke his licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 (the Act). The grounds for the revocation were that Mr Mazurani was not considered to be a fit and proper person to hold a security licence and it was not considered to be in the public interest for him to hold a licence.

Facts not in dispute

2 On 24 August 1998, the applicant applied for a Class 1A licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 (the Act). A Class 1A licence relates to patrolling, guarding and watching or protecting property. The Commissioner refused this application on the grounds that it was contrary to the public interest.

3 Mr Mazurani lodged an appeal to the Local Court which had jurisdiction to hear such applications at the time. Mr Barnett LCM allowed the appeal on 27 October 1998. He recommended that a review of the applicant’s suitability for a licence be made after criminal charges pending against Mr Mazurani had been resolved.

4 On 28 January 1999, the Local Court convicted Mr Mazurani of three counts of Assault Officer in Execution of Duty for which he was fined $250 on each count and Resist or Hinder Police Officer in the execution of Duty for which he was fined $250. He was also convicted of another three counts of Resist or Hinder Police Officer in the Execution of Duty and fined $100 on each count.

5 The circumstances surrounding these convictions is recorded in the Fact Sheet. Briefly, police officers went to Mr Mazurani’s house on 1 July 1998 with a search warrant. They were looking for a stolen bicycle. They knocked on the door but Mr Mazurani was reluctant to open it and became aggressive. When Mr Mazurani opened the door the police officers showed him the search warrant. Mr Mazurani verbally abused the officers and attempted to close the door. While Detective Scott and Lister attempted to open the door Mr Mazurani punched Detective Lister in the face with a closed fist. A violent struggle took place during which Mr Mazurani punched Inspector Tulip in the mouth and punched Detective Scott several times in the head. Mr Mazurani was eventually handcuffed.

6 The Commissioner revoked Mr Mazuranis’ licence on 7 April 1999.

7 Mr Mazurani appealed to the District Court against the criminal convictions on all grounds. The Court dismissed the appeal but quashed the orders for fines of $250 plus $51 court costs and instead imposed fines of $180 on each plus $51 court costs. In respect of the resist arrest charges the fines of $100 were confirmed.

8 Mr Mazurani tendered a tape recording of the proceedings before the District Court. In that recording, Mr Mazurani’s lawyer drew Chief Judge Blanche’s attention to the mandatory disqualification provisions of the Act. These provisions require the Commissioner to refuse to issue a security licence if, within the previous 10 years, the person has been convicted of an offence involving assault in respect of which the penalty imposed was imprisonment, or a fine of $200 or more, or both. (See s 16(1)(a) of the Act and Cl 11(1)(c) of the Security Industry Regulation 1988.)

9 Chief Judge Blanch expressed the view that it would be wrong for Mr Mazurani to be automatically disqualified from holding a licence. His Honour decided to reduce the penalties so that they were less than $200 so that Mr Mazurani would not face an automatic loss of livelihood. In His Honour’s view, the issue of whether he should hold a licence should be determined on the merits.

10 At Mr Mazurani’s request, an internal review of the Commissioner’s decision to revoke his licence was carried out. By letter dated 6 December 1999 the Commissioner’s delegate advised Mr Mazurani that the original decision had been affirmed. The basis for the decision was that Mr Mazurani is not a fit and proper person to hold a security licence and that it is not in the public interest for him to continue to hold a licence.

Evidence

11 In support of his application that he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, Mr Mazurani’s mother and his ex-wife gave evidence. Atina Mazurani, who lives next door to her son, said that he is a “very good son” and he helps her a lot. He does not drink, smoke or gamble and has looked after his own son, who is now 19 years old, for the last 18 years.

12 Yvonne Hunter, Mr Mazurani’s ex wife, gave evidence that their son has caused them considerable problems since he became involved with another young man, Mr Knevitt. Ms Hunter said that her ex-husband had done a fantastic job raising a son who is very troubled and that she has never seen him strike anyone. However, Ms Hunter agreed in cross examination that Mr Mazurani had assaulted her during the period of their marriage.

13 Mr Mazurani provided references from Peter Whybourne of SNP Security Services (where he worked for 3 months in 1988); Assumpta Murphy, a friend of Mr Mazurani; and Dr Halvajieff, Mr Mazurani’s family doctor. None of the references were written after the convictions referred to above.

14 Mr Mazurani submitted that the convictions were an isolated incident and that, “If there is a need for an apology, I apologise.” He said he relies on his work as a security officer for his livelihood. He also said that he has a contract with his son which was mediated by the Community Justice Centre as well as a temporary Apprehended Violence Order against him.

15 Mr Tunks on behalf of the Commissioner submitted that Mr Mazurani “has a propensity to make false or coloured allegations in conflict situations.” In support of this submission Mr Tunks referred to three matters. The first was that Judge Blanch did not accept his version of events and dismissed his appeal. The second were allegations of threats referred to in paragraphs 12 and 15 of Detective Scott’s statement dated 2 July 1998. Unfortunately these statements were not put to Mr Mazurani. The third matter is recorded in a police intelligence report dated 21 September 1998 where the officer expressed the view that Mr Mazurani and his son were “attempting to make false allegations against a prosecution witness in an attempt to discredit any evidence given by this witness in court.” Again, this matter was not put to Mr Mazurani.

16 Mr Tunks also relied on Mr Mazurani’s criminal record including other convictions for assault.

17 Section s 26 (1)(c) of the Act states that:

(1) A licence may be revoked:

(c) if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, or

18 Clause 18 of the Security Industry Regulation 1998 provides that the Commissioner may, in accordance with section 26(1)(d) of the Act, revoke a licence, if the Commissioner considers that it is not in the public interest for the person to whom it is granted to continue to hold it.

19 The Commissioner has set out his understanding of the applicable law in paragraph 9 of the internal review document dated 6 December 1999. I accept that this is a correct statement of the law and do not intend to repeat it here.

Tribunal’s reasoning and conclusions

20 In my view, the Commissioner has made the correct decision in revoking Mr Mazurani’s licence on the ground that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The offences with which he was convicted show a propensity for aggressive and violent behaviour and a lack of respect for police officers.

21 The evidence given by Mr Mazurani’s mother and ex wife do not assist him to any great extent. Ms Hunter said she had never seen him strike anyone and then agreed that he had assaulted her. The references Mr Mazurani relied on are of very little consequence given that they were written before these incidents occurred.

22 Mr Mazurani did not show genuine remorse for his actions, merely remarking that “if there is need of an apology, I apologise.” Mr Mazurani submitted that now that his son has moved out of his home he is not as anxious. I am not satisfied that Mr Mazurani’s son was somehow responsible for Mr Mazurani’s behaviour.

23 The fact the Chief Judge Blanch reduced the penalties to avoid a mandatory disqualification was a reflection of His Honour’s view of the law. His Honour considered it wrong that disqualification should be mandatory and reduced the penalties so that the Commissioner could exercise his discretion on the question of whether to revoke Mr Mazurani’s licence. His Honour did not make any findings or make any inferences about Mr Mazurani’s fitness to hold a security licence.

24 Having made a finding that Mr Mazurani is not a fit and proper person to hold a security licence, there is no need to consider the second ground relied on by the Commissioner that it is not in the public interest for Mr Mazurani to have a licence. The decision of the Commissioner to revoke the applicant’s licence is affirmed.