See v Transport for NSW - [2012] NSWADT 51

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: See v Transport for NSW [2012] NSWADT 51
Hearing dates: 13 March 2012
Decision date: 23 March 2012
Jurisdiction: General Division
Before: C Huntsman, Judicial member
Decision:
The decision is affirmed.

Catchwords: Criminal charges; burglary; serious offence; suspension of taxi driver authority
Legislation Cited: Sections 4, 33(3), 33F Passenger Transport Act 1990
Cases Cited: Chowdhury v Department of Transport and Infrastructure [2010] NSWADT 199
Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68
Department of Transport and Infrastructure v Murray (GD) 2011 NSWADTAP
Director General, Department of Transport v Z (No.2) (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 37 Nasour v Director-General, Transport NSW[2011] NSWADT 91
Director General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher John See (Applicant)
Transport for New South Wales (Respondent)
Representation: The Peoples Solicitors (Applicant)
Smythe Wozniak Solicitors (Respondent)

File Number(s): 123024

Judgment

Background

This was an application by Mr Christopher John See, the applicant, for review of a decision of the respondent, Transport for New South Wales, to suspend his taxi driver authority. The respondent issued a notice of suspension by letter dated 17 January 2012. The statement of reasons attached to the notice detail that the respondent, when conducting data matching with the New South Wales police, identified that the applicant had been charged with criminal offences. The police report received by the respondent, as detailed in the statement of reasons, indicated that goods were stolen to the value of $450,000.

The applicant applied to the tribunal for review of the decision to suspend his taxi driver authority, and also for a stay of the reviewable decision. The tribunal refused to stay the decision and made directions to progress the hearing of the matter.

The applicant has driven taxis since 1990. During this period he has also been in full-time employment in the Commonwealth Public Service.

The applicant's case

The applicant provided written evidence, by affidavit, and written submissions to the tribunal at the hearing. The applicant was not required for cross-examination. In the affidavit the applicant noted a number of matters about his personal circumstances, and the hardship which would be caused to him if the decision to suspend his driver authority was affirmed by the tribunal. He noted in his affidavit that as a taxi driver since 1990 he has never been subject of any complaint to the authority. He notes that on 19 December 2011 he was charged with the offence of burglary, and that he had entered a plea of not guilty to the offence and the matters are still to be heard. As a result of the charges he was suspended without pay from his employment in the Commonwealth Public Service in January 2012. He notes that his taxi driver authority has also been suspended because of the criminal charges. He states that the criminal charges do not relate to his employment as a taxi driver. He states that he has not been able to find other…

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 See v Transport for NSW 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 51
Decision Date: 23 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of See v Transport for NSW involved the appellant, a taxi driver, contesting the decision of Transport for NSW to suspend his taxi driver authority. The dispute centred around whether the decision to suspend his authority was lawful, given that the appellant had been charged with a serious offence of burglary. The matter was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision to suspend the appellant’s taxi driver authority was lawful, rational, and based on relevant considerations. The Tribunal had to consider whether the Transport for NSW decision-makers appropriately exercised their discretion in light of the appellant’s criminal charges, specifically for burglary, and whether the decision to suspend his authority was proportionate to the alleged offence.

The Tribunal found that the decision to suspend the appellant’s taxi driver authority was indeed lawful. It held that the decision-makers appropriately exercised their discretion by considering the nature of the alleged offence, the risk to the public, and the potential impact on the appellant's fitness to hold a taxi driver authority. The Tribunal emphasised that the seriousness of the offence charged, burglary, warranted a strong response to protect public safety. The Tribunal concluded that the suspension was a proportionate measure given the circumstances, thereby affirming the decision of Transport for NSW.

No additional orders were made beyond affirming the decision of Transport for NSW to suspend the appellant's taxi driver authority. The Tribunal’s affirmation upheld the decision-makers’ assessment that the suspension was necessary to safeguard public interest while the appellant faced serious criminal charges.

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:	See v Transport for NSW [2012] NSWADT 51
Hearing dates:	13 March 2012
Decision date:	23 March 2012
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	C Huntsman, Judicial member
Decision:	The decision is affirmed.
Catchwords:	Criminal charges; burglary; serious offence; suspension of taxi driver authority
Legislation Cited:	Sections 4, 33(3), 33F Passenger Transport Act 1990
Cases Cited:	Chowdhury v Department of Transport and Infrastructure [2010] NSWADT 199 Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68 Department of Transport and Infrastructure v Murray (GD) 2011 NSWADTAP Director General, Department of Transport v Z (No.2) (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 37 Nasour v Director-General, Transport NSW[2011] NSWADT 91 Director General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Christopher John See (Applicant) Transport for New South Wales (Respondent)
Representation:	The Peoples Solicitors (Applicant) Smythe Wozniak Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s):	123024