Singh v Roads and Maritime Services

[2013] NSWADT 312

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Singh v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 312
Hearing dates:	10 December 2013
Decision date:	10 December 2013
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	A Scahill, Judicial Member
Decision:	Decision to cancel authority affirmed
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Oaths Act 1900 Passenger Transport Act 1990 Passenger transport Regulation 2007
Cases Cited:	Miah v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 264 Saadieh v Director- General, Department of Transport [1999]NSWADT 68
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Nishan Singh (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation:	Smythe Wozniak (Respondent)
File Number(s):	133312

reasons for decision

1. The Applicant, Mr Nishan Singh, has held a taxi-cab driver's authority in New South Wales since 29 June 2012. That driver's authority was cancelled by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) on 9 October 2013. The reason why that authority was cancelled was that Mr Singh had committed two driving offences about which he had not notified the RMS. He had also falsely sworn two statutory declarations that it was not he who had been driving at the time but his brother.

1. Mr Singh was advised of the RMS decision and he sought a stay on the basis of his financial hardship. That stay was granted by the Tribunal on 22 October 2013.

1. The matter now before us is whether the original decision of the RMS to cancel Mr Singh's driver's authority is the correct and preferable decision, whether it should be affirmed, varied or overturned pursuant to sections 52(1) of the Passenger Transport Act and 63 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act.

1. In considering this matter the Tribunal needs to consider what the purpose is of the issuing of a taxi-cab driver's authority to an applicant. Section 33 of the Passenger Transport Act provides that the purpose of the issuing of an authority is to attest that the person is of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be driving a taxi-cab and that the person is considered to have sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive a taxi-cab. In this matter the issue is basically whether or not Mr Singh is of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to drive a taxicab and whether he has the requisite responsibility and aptitude to do so.

1. We have heard from Mr Singh that he agrees that he did in fact commit the driving offences. He was concerned that he would lose his licence, having been advised by RMS that he was close to the end of his demerit points. He had previously had his licence suspended in Queensland because he had used up his demerit point allocation and he was concerned that this might happen again.

1. Mr Singh says that he discussed with other drivers the options. He decided at that time that he should swear a statutory declaration that it had not been himself but rather his brother who was driving at the time. He says in his evidence that at the time he did not think it was a big deal but he now understands that it was the wrong thing to do and that it was an offence of a serious nature to swear a false statutory declaration.

1. We have had before us three references from friends and associates of Mr Singh. They are from Ramanbir Kaur Sandhu, Fathey Zayed, Patrick O'Callaghan and from his friend who has attended here to support him today who is also a taxi driver, Mr Singh Bhuller. Those referees were made aware of the offences that occurred but nonetheless they still hold Mr Singh in some regard. These references are but one aspect of the issue of being a fit and proper person and that is in relation to good repute and I take those into account.

1. However, on the other side of the issues that the Tribunal has to weigh up are the issues of Mr Singh's fitness and propriety to hold a taxi-cab driver's authority. Mr Singh does have a number of driving offences, all of which have occurred within a short period of time since obtaining his authority in June 2012. They include a number of speeding offences, using a mobile phone while driving and making an unlawful right turn. Of course, someone who drives for a living has a greater opportunity of attracting traffic offences. However, that makes it even more incumbent on the person to ensure that they protect their livelihood by driving within the law.

1. Mr Singh has given evidence that he is very concerned about his capacity to earn a living, that he is now married and that not being able to drive a taxi-cab will interfere with this. That, of course, is an important issue for Mr Singh but it specifically does not go to the issue of whether or not Mr Singh at present is a fit and proper person to drive a taxi-cab.

1. I have been presented by the Respondent with the case of Miah v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 264. The Applicant in that matter had similarly had his taxi authority cancelled by the RMS as a result of making false statutory declarations in order to protect his driver's licence and therefore his livelihood contrary to the Oaths Act. In that matter the Tribunal referred to the gravity and the seriousness of swearing false declarations and upheld the decision to cancel the driver's authority. The Tribunal also instanced the case of a former Federal Court judge who had recently been sentenced to three years imprisonment for offences arising out of an attempt to avoid loss of traffic points following a speeding charge.

1. The matter of a Federal Court judge and misconduct is not a matter that would be dealt with by this Tribunal. However, the outcome of that matter does reflect I think the gravity of the behaviour of swearing a false declaration and in these circumstances.

1. The Applicant has reassured the Tribunal that he would not undertake this behaviour again and also that he would be more aware and conscious of the need to drive within the law in order to protect his licence in future.

1. Weighing up all of these considerations the Respondent has referred the Tribunal to the matter of Saadieh v Director- General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68 and the necessity to weigh up several of these matters. It is the Tribunal's finding that at present the Tribunal cannot conclude on the evidence before it that the Tribunal can attest to the applicant's suitability and fitness to hold a taxi driver's authority at the present time. An issue in this matter has been the applicant's honesty and the Tribunal cannot be clear at present that the applicant's honesty can be attested to. The offences that have been committed are serious and it is too soon to say with any confidence that the Tribunal can attest to his honesty which is so significant in relation to his fitness and propriety to drive a taxi cab.

1. In the circumstances the Tribunal affirms the decision under review and that means that the stay would be terminated and Mr Singh's authority remains cancelled.

1. I did ask Mr Wozniak, the Respondent's representative, how Mr Singh might demonstrate that he has again become a fit and proper person to drive a cab. Mr Wozniak has indicated that it may indeed be the effluxion of time. It may indeed be demonstration of good behaviour. That is a matter for Mr Singh to demonstrate should he decide in the future to apply again for an authority which, as Mr Wozniak has indicated, it is open for him to do.

1. I have noted that if Mr Singh had had the two offences in August and October 2012 recorded against his record that he would necessarily have served a period of suspension of his driver's licence of six months, with 2 three month cumulative suspensions. This suspension has not occurred because of the elapse of time.

1. It may be that this six month period is a relevant period of time for Mr Singh's authority to remain cancelled. However, I note that that does not necessarily deal with the issue of the false declaration. That, however, is a matter for the future and for the RMS to deal with if and when Mr Singh decides to make a further application for a driver's authority.

1. The Tribunal's decision is that the decision under review is affirmed and that Mr Singh's taxi driver authority is cancelled and that does terminate the stay that was granted on 22 October 2013.

Decision last updated: 25 February 2014