Taibo v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service

[2001] NSWADT 71

Set aside by Appeal: Order of Tribunal made on 08/05/2001 set aside.

CITATION:	Taibo -v- Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 71
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Ramio Taibo RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service
FILE NUMBER:	003399
HEARING DATES:	12/04/2001
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/12/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	05/08/2001
BEFORE:	Wilson K - Judicial Member
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, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. The decision of the Commisssioner revoking the class 1A security licence under the Security Industry Act is affirmed.

Background

1 On 14 June 2000 the Applicant was issued with a Class 1A licence under the Security Industry Act 1997.

2 On 21 September 2000 at Fairfield Local Court the Applicant was found guilty of shoplifting with no conviction being recorded and entered into a bond to be of good behaviour for twelve months.

3 Following the transmission of the Court records in relation to this incident the Applicant's security licence was reviewed and was revoked. The Commissioner's delegate also took into account three other matters which occurred in 1991 and 1992 relating to dishonesty.

The Applicant's Evidence

4 Mr Taibo gave evidence before the Tribunal. He said that he had become a licensed security guard in the hope of enjoying some more sustained employment. The incident which took place related to Mr Taibo having been offered a position as a security guard in the Olympics. One of the requirements for people taking this position is that they had a torch. On his way to his first day in the job he went into a retail shop and stole a torch and batteries. This is the matter referred to in his conviction at Fairfield.

5 Mr Taibo also wished to explain the earlier matters in 1991 and 1992 and these related mainly to his dire financial circumstances at that time. The Tribunal indicated that these matters were not of direct importance in assessing the present matter.

6 Mr Taibo considered that notwithstanding the shoplifting matter he should be entitled to retain his licence.

Relevant Considerations

7 Whether a person is fit and proper to hold a security industry licence depends on an assessment of all the circumstances in regard to the particular matter. In this case the Tribunal is left in no doubt that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a security industry licence.

8 In this case the Applicant did have some matters of dishonesty on his record from almost ten years ago. Notwithstanding these he was issued with a licence in mid 2000.

9 However, for a person who holds a security industry licence to be apprehended on the way to their job by virtue of the fact that they are shoplifting a torch for the purpose of carrying out their job shows scant regard for the qualities that are required and are reasonably expected by the ordinary person to reside in a person who is fit and proper to be licensed as a security guard. The Applicant has demonstrated by his own actions that he is not a suitable person to hold such a licence.

Determination

10 For the reasons set out above the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Commissioner, to revoke the Class 1A licence of the Applicant.