El-Ahmad v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATOD 118

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: El-Ahmad v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATOD 118 Hearing dates: 15 October 2020 Date of orders: 19 October 2020 Decision date: 19 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: Dr J Lucy, Senior Member Decision: The respondent's decision is affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Security industry licences – Where applicant convicted in the last ten years of a prescribed offence – Where respondent revoked applicant's security licence - Where legislation provides for mandatory revocation in those circumstances Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008 (NSW) Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW) Security Industry Regulation 2016 (NSW) Cases Cited: Bourke v The New South Wales Commissioner of Police [1998] ADT Vlahos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATOD 113 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ahmad El-Ahmad (Applicant) Commissioner of Police (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Halla El-Ahmad (Agent) (Applicant) Office of the General Counsel, NSW Police Force (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/00117609 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The applicant, Mr El-Ahmad, has applied for a review of the decision of the Commissioner of Police ("the Commissioner") to cancel his security licence. 2. The Commissioner cancelled the applicant's security licence following his convictions for possession of prohibited drugs and possession of a prescribed restricted substance in February this year. 3. The Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW) makes it mandatory for the Commissioner to revoke a person's security licence if satisfied that the person was convicted of certain offences, including those of which the applicant was convicted, within the last ten years. The Tribunal, standing in the Commissioner's shoes, has no discretion to make a different decision. 4. For these reasons, I have decided to affirm the Commissioner's decision.