Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Arida v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATOD 168 Hearing dates: 23 December 2019 Date of orders: 21 January 2020 Decision date: 21 January 2020 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: Naida Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision to revoke the Applicant's master security licence is affirmed. (2) The decision to revoke the Applicant's 1AC security licence is set aside and the Respondent is to re-instate the Applicant's Class 1AC security licence. Catchwords: SECURITY LICENCE – revocation – fit and proper person – public interest – discretion – master licence – additional responsibilities Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Security Industry Act 1997 Cases Cited: Austin v Commissioner of Fair Trading & Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAP 179 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 94 ALR 11 Blisset v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2006] NSWADT 114 Bottomley v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 211 Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 Cook v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 30 Farquharson v Director-General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 53 Feuerstein v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2007] NSWADT 114 Haining v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [1999] NSWADT 6 Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218 Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127 Ibrahim v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2009] NSWADT 245 IJ v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2003] NSWADT 230 Infarinato v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2004] NSWADT 43 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 O'Neill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2005] NSWADT 130 O'Sullivan v Farrer [1989] HCA 61; (1989) 168 CLR 210 Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70. Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Arida (Applicant) Commissioner of Police (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Kedron Legal (Applicant) Office of General Counsel, NSW Police Force (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/00251295 Publication restriction: Nil REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The Applicant, John Arida was first issued with a class 1AC security licence in 2000. In March 2019 he was also issued with a master licence in his business name, Alert Alternative Security Services. On 2 May 2019 a decision was made to revoke both licences on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person and that it would not be in the public interest for him to continue to hold the licences. That decision was affirmed on internal review. The Applicant has sought review of that decision. Legislative scheme in relation to revocation of licences 1. Section 26 of the Security Industry Act 1997 (SI Act) provides, relevantly: 26 Revocation of licence … (1A) The Commissioner must revoke a licence where the Commissioner is satisfied that, if the licensee were applying for a new licence, the application would be required by this Act to be refused. … 1. In turn, s 15 of the SI Act relevantly, provides: 15 Restrictions on granting licence - general suitability criteria (1) The Commissioner must refuse to grant an application for a licence if the Commissioner is not satisfied that the applicant: (a) is a fit and proper person to hold the class of licence sought by the applicant, or … (e) is competent to carry on the security activity to which the proposed licence relates, or … (3) The Commissioner may refuse to grant an application for a licence if the Commissioner considers that the grant of the licence would be contrary to the public interest. (4) The regulations may provide additional mandatory or discretionary grounds for refusing the granting of an application for a licence. (5) ... 1. For completeness, s 15(6) of the SI Act includes that criminal intelligence matters may be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence or whether the grant of the licence would be contrary to the public interest, but there was no contention by the Respondent that there were any matters of this kind applicable to the Applicant. 2. In relation to the master licence held by the Applicant, the SI Act provides, relevantly, at s 10: 10 master licences (1) master licences are to be classified into subclasses. Those subclasses, and the authority they confer, are as follows: … (c) class MC--authorises the holder to provide between 4 and 14 persons on any one day to carry on security activities, each of whom must be the holder of a class 1 or class 2 licence, … (3) A master licence does not authorise the licensee to enter into any arrangement, by contract, franchise or otherwise, with another person for the purpose of providing persons to carry on security activities unless the other person is the holder of a master licence or is a person holding a visitor permit authorising its holder to carry on security activities of a kind authorised by a master licence. 1. A master licence carries additional conditions (as set out in s 23) and responsibilities e.g. as set out in s 39A and 39B. In addition, s 39 relevantly provides that a master licensee is not to provide unlicensed persons to carry out security activities: 39 Master licensee not to provide unlicensed persons (1) …the holder of a master licence must not provide any person to carry on any security activity if that person is not the holder of a licence that authorises the person to carry on a security activity of that kind. Maximum penalty: (a) in the case of a corporation--1,000 penalty units, or (b) in the case of an individual--500 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. (2) It is a defence in proceedings for an offence under this section if the master licensee satisfies the court that the master licensee did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the person provided by the master licensee did not hold a licence that authorised the person to carry on a security activity of the kind concerned. 1. Section 39B requires a master licencee is to have "fitness for work" policy: 39B master licencee to have "fitness for work" policy A master licensee must not provide any person to carry on a security activity unless the master licensee has prepared and implemented a fitness for work policy that covers the use of alcohol and other drugs by persons provided by the licensee to carry on security activities. Maximum penalty: (a) in the case of a corporation--20 penalty units, or (b) in the case of an individual--10 penalty units What led to the revocation? 1. The Respondent relied on the Applicant's conduct in providing security services at "The Origins of Entropy: Open Air Lifestyle, Art and Music" festival (the festival), held at a private property in Brooman (the property) in the Shoalhaven region from 19 April 2019 to 22 April 2019, as providing a basis for a finding that he is not a fit and proper person to hold any security licence, especially a master licence. The same conduct was relied on in support of the Respondent's contention that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold any security licence. The hearing 1. The Applicant provided an affidavit sworn on 7 November 2019, which he supplemented in his evidence. In addition to the documents filed pursuant to s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997, the Respondent relied on the evidence of Senior Constable Adam Hunt who had been called to the festival, initially in response to a noise complaint, and who attended the property on 4 subsequent occasions. The Respondent also played lengthy segments of 'body-cam' video taken by SC Hunt during most of his attendances. 2. The Applicant said he had worked in the security industry with Jayson Baker (Jayson), who had previously run a security business, for over ten years. He knew Jayson to have a criminal history and, although he did not know the details, knew that Jayson was no longer entitled to hold a security licence. Subsequent enquiries made by SC Hunt revealed that Jayson was on remand for multiple charges of possession of prohibited drugs and supplying prohibited drugs, as well as being on a 2-year good behaviour bond for the offence of possess prohibited drug. 3. Through his employment with Jayson, the Applicant said he met Jed Wilson (Jed), a director of Noesis Productions Pty Limited (the company), which staged the festival, although in cross-examination said he had not met Jed until the festival. He said that early in 2019, he received a telephone call from Jed, who, he said, asked if he would "volunteer" to provide a "minimal security presence" at the festival in order to ensure that the patrons were safe. The festival sounded enjoyable and he was happy to volunteer to assist in the running of the festival. According to SC Hunt, at no time during his attendances at the festival did the Applicant claim to be there as a "volunteer". 4. In cross examination the Applicant said that he was given money for food and petrol, which he paid for. He would ask Jed or Jayson for money for food for "the boys". In all, he received, he said, about $200. One of the organisers, Phillip Roberts, the "Festival Director" told Police that that Alert (Alternative Security Services), the Applicant's business was paid cash as a 'donation'. 5. The Applicant said Jed explained that there were a number of other persons who had agreed to volunteer at the festival - to provide services such as maintaining a fully equipped and registered medical tent, a child care facility, chill spaces, yoga classes, cultural spaces including art galleries, and also Dancewize volunteers who would assist patrons and who would promote health awareness and provide health information to patrons. (Dancewize, it appears, is funded by the Department of Health to have volunteers to attend music festivals to increase the safety of festival patrons and provide information about safe partying.) 6. The Applicant said that to the best of his knowledge, the volunteers received a nominal donation for their time and efforts at the festival to cover their expenses. 7. The Applicant said the festival was to be a family-friendly, 4-day live-in festival to be held for the benefit of a small community (about 1000) of like-minded people for a weekend where the patrons would engage in cultural activities and enjoy music. He understood that the festival was predominately run by volunteers who would man the stalls, conduct activities and assist in the smooth running of the festival. According to the company's Event Management Plan an attendance of up to 1200 people was expected, with 300 artists/performers/crew/volunteers. The Applicant said when he arrived at the site he was given a map and told to walk around and make sure everyone was safe. He could not recall ever seeing the Event Management Plan. 8. The other person providing security services was Saif Al-Buseri (Saif), a licensed security officer. The Applicant said he thought Saif was a friend or a cousin of someone and he had first met him 1-2 years ago. He said in cross-examination that he had arranged Saif's attendance, telling him it would be 'easy, cruisy'. He said he and Saif were just happy to listen to the music. They travelled to the festival site with Jayson. They took turns in walking around the site to ensure the crowd was safe, and to respond to any questions from the people attending. As a security officer, he said his strategy is generally built a rapport with the people attending the festival. 9. Jayson, the Applicant said, was an experienced and accredited RSA marshal, who assisted them (by which I understood him to mean himself and Saif) in identifying intoxicated persons. He said he did not have any issue with Jayson carrying on the role of an RSA marshal; Jayson knew what to look out for when assessing whether patrons were intoxicated so as to keep all the patrons safe. He said that when Police asked him if Jayson was suitable to be acting as RSA marshal, he replied that he was and that he had known Jayson for many years. He said he stressed that Jayson was only an RSA marshal and he was not acting as a security officer. Police visits to the festival First visit: 0600 on 20 April 2019 1. SC Hunt said that there were even issues accessing the festival. The road to the festival was difficult even for the Police 4WD, especially as there was an impassible bridge which had not been operational for some months. The site, in his view, would be inaccessible for a fire truck or other emergency services vehicle. 2. SC Hunt said that, on arrival, he was stopped near the gate at a tent which appeared to be set up as a marshalling area. He spoke to a lady who was not displaying any security licensing card or wearing any attire to suggest that she was part of any security personnel. She told him it was a private party, but when he asked her if people had to pay an entry fee and she told him that it cost $200 a ticket. Given this information, he regarded the festival to be a ticketed event open to the public, which should therefore have been licensed. He told the lady to get the manager. The Applicant said in cross-examination that he did not know who manned the front area, although it is common for security guards to be stationed at an entry point. He said he was told by the organisers that they were not required at the entry because it was not a commercialised event. The payment of $200, he understood, was to cover expenses. 3. SC Hunt said that in his view it is essential that security be in attendance at the point of entry of such an event so as to enable an assessment as to the sobriety and general demeanour of persons attending, and allow for the exclusion of intoxicated or unruly persons. It would also allow for the screening of their possessions. In particular, searches would be directed to determine whether persons were in possession of drugs, large amounts of alcohol, weapons or articles that could harm other persons attending. 4. SC Hunt said he noticed there to be tents and cars parked over a wide area - approximately 10 acres. There was no order to this area and no safety measures had been put in place, with vehicles parked in and between tents. In his observation the total size of the property being used for the event was about 20 acres. 5. SC Hunt said that as he entered, he was waved down by Jed who identified himself as one of the festival managers. He noticed in the cupholder of Jed's ute an open bottle of beer. He said he questioned Jed about the festival and what licensing permits they had and who was running the security. During this conversation the property owner and 2 other owners of the company came over. He asked to see the security officer team leader. The festival organisers came to the Applicant's tent and woke him up so that he could speak with the Police. The Applicant said he quickly got ready and placed his security licence around his arm to verify that he was the security officer they were requesting. At the time he was wearing shorts, a t-shirt and thongs. 6. SC Hunt was introduced to Saif who, at the time, was wearing black pants, a black T-shirt and a had a black handbag. SC Hunt said he could just make out a black arm band on his right bicep, which contained Saif's security licence, but which blended into his black shirt. Without having been introduced to him by the owners he would not have been able to identify him as a security guard, he said. SC Hunt said there is no requirement to where Hi-Vis attire, but it is essential that security staff be identifiable to patrons. 7. SC Hunt said he asked Saif how many security guards there were, and he told him there were three guards - himself, Jayson and the Applicant who was "the boss". 8. Whilst SC Hunt was speaking with Saif, the Applicant approached him. The Applicant's evidence was that said that, after working throughout the night, he finished his shift, presumably leaving Saif as the sole licensed security guard. They had informal shift arrangements, he said in cross-examination, and whoever needed sleep, took a break. He said he was trying to get as much sleep as possible so that he could be refreshed for the afternoon shift. He had decided to have a couple of wines before he went to bed, as it had been hot and he wanted to "mellow down". 9. The Applicant told SC Hunt that he had been asleep and had just been woken up. SC Hunt said he could smell stale intoxicating liquor on the Applicant's breath; he had to "take a step back". He noticed his eyes were glazed and bloodshot. He said he asked him if he had been drinking and he responded that he had just used some mouthwash. He told the Applicant that his breath should smell like mint, not alcohol then. The Applicant said when he spoke with the Police he was "still waking-up" and that when he "realised what the Police officer had asked him", he said that he had consumed a couple of wines before he went to bed in order to relax and fall asleep. SC Hunt assessed the Applicant as being moderately affected by alcohol. In his evidence SC Hunt explained that the Applicant's speech was slurred, he was talking slowly and was slightly unsteady on his feet. He said he was at the site for about 45 minutes in total, and, of that time, had the opportunity to observe the Applicant for about 30 minutes. The Applicant denied that he was "moderately affected" by alcohol. He did not recall claiming to have used mouthwash when first asked by SC Hunt. 10. SC Hunt said he would not have considered the Applicant fit to perform security duties that day. 11. The Applicant showed SC Hunt a folder which contained a copy of his master licence and other documents, but these did not include an Incident Register or a Security Management Plan (SM Plan) for the festival. A SM Plan is prepared by the security provider. While an Event Management Plan may contain general references to intended security arrangements, the SM Plan should set out the specific details of security measures and arrangements that are to be provided. The SM Plan will vary from venue to venue. A SM Plan will typically include: shift start and finish times; how many security guards and RSA marshals are on at any given time; the ratio of security guards to patrons; what the roles of the security personnel are and how they are to act when an incident occurs; contact details of master licence holder and emergency services; a layout of the venue; a signature page showing that all working staff have read and signed the SM Plan. In essence, SC Hunt said, a SM Plan should be written up to cover all reasonably foreseeable issues that could occur. In his evidence SC Hunt said the plan may be simple or complex depending on factors such as the venue, the size of the festival and whether alcohol is to be available. 12. SC Hunt explained that he considered an appropriate SM Plan for the festival would include measures such as that there be at least 4 police user pays in attendance at any one time; the security would all be working in a minimum of two guards to a team with radio communication; one security team to walk the food and shop stalls; two security teams in the dance area; one security team walking between the river and walk way between the dance area and food stalls; one security team walking each camp ground; one security team at the entrance; one security team, including the team leader, constantly walking all areas at least 4 RSA officers to be managing the sale and consumption of alcohol. 13. In his evidence SC Hunt clarified that this would total 14 security guards at any one time, working shifts of 10 hours on/10 hours off. In cross-examination he said that , although the mix could change, he did not think that there could be any less security guards for the festival. He rejected that the other volunteers such as the medical staff and the Dancewize members could assist, as they are not trained in management of a crowd. It was noted that the Event Management Plan contains an Emergency Management Plan which includes an evacuation plan. There is no requirement for a security guard to have an evacuation plan, but he needs to be familiar with the event plan and how to put it into effect. 14. SC Hunt said he was introduced to Jayson, who was described, possibly by the Applicant, as the third security guard. Jayson was sweating, had glassed blood shot eyes, was unsteady on his feet and his clothes were disheveled. SC Hunt assessed him as either intoxicated or affected by drugs, and to be "moderately affected". In his experience, he said, he has seen countless persons in various states of intoxication, and from his experience and training is able to form an opinion in relation to a person's intoxication level. Jayson wore his RSA ID card on his bicep like the two security guards. He had no distinguishing uniform to show he was an RSA marshal. 15. SC Hunt said he asked the Applicant why he and Saif were not wearing any identifiable clothing to show that they were security guards or RSA marshals. One of the festival organizers answered that they were "covert security" and the Applicant did not contradict that description. He said that this is what the festival organizers had requested as it created an atmosphere where the crowd did not feel as if they were being watched and the festival was on the whole, a friendly and family environment. He said in his evidence that "every second person seemed to know each other". He just walked around and talked to people. SC Hunt said in his evidence that he had never before come across "covert" security. The Applicant said he had been told not to wear distinctive clothing as patrons may feel intimidated and panic. SC Hunt said however that it is essential for security personnel to wear identifiable clothing. 16. SC Hunt said he considered security guards need to be clearly visible to the patrons so they can easily seek their assistance if required and so that they be identified if an incident occurs. The conspicuousness of security guards also has the effect of reminding patrons of their presence, and therefore the need for them to control their behaviour. He considered that If the festival organizer or the security team want covert work to be conducted, arrangements could be made with police for covert officers to attend. He said he told the Applicant to obtain Hi-Vis vests and to write "SECURITY" on the back and front with a black marker, and that Jayson should do likewise but write "RSA". 17. During further discussions with the Applicant and the festival organizers, SC Hunt said he informed them they were to arrange for no less than five more security guards to be working during the festival and that they had 5 hours to arrange this. They agreed was enough time to have guards from Sydney to travel down if they could not organize closer guards. 18. SC Hunt asked the organizers for any documents that they had which set out organizational and operational arrangements for the festival. He said he was shown a document titled "Event Management Plan Origins of Entropy: Open Air Lifestyle, Art and Music 12-22 April 2019." A copy of this document was subsequently emailed to SC Hunt and is included in the material before the Tribunal. SC Hunt said he asked if there was a SM Plan and was informed that there was one, but it could not be located. The organizers said they would send him a copy, however none was provided. 19. With respect to security, the Event Management Plan records the person nominated as "Security Manager", as "Jason". "Alert Alternative Security Pty Ltd" is noted as the provider of security services. The number of security personnel rostered on for duty was between 2 and 4. Security personnel were to have constant radio communications with management. Second visit: 1830 on 20 April 2019 1. SC Hunt and other Police returned to the property and were primarily talking to the festival organizers, focusing on a number of regulatory issues that the Police alleged had not been complied with by the festival organizers. The Applicant said he had little involvement in these conversations although he was present throughout "assisting the Police officers with their enquiries". The questions directed to him were mainly relating to who the security officers were, how many security officers were present and the clothing, as the Police wanted them to be wearing Hi-Vis jackets so that they were distinguishable in the crowd. 2. Police were insistent that there be more security guards at the festival as two guards and one RSA marshal were insufficient. However, that was a decision for the festival organizers, the Applicant said, and was beyond his control, as he was only a volunteer. He considered the request for more security guards to be an onerous one given the timing of the request, the timeframe in which to comply with the request and the rural location of the festival. He said he assisted the festival organizers in attempting to source additional security officers, however he was unable to do so. The festival organizers informed Police that no more security guards were coming to attend the festival, and the Applicant told SC Hunt that it would only be the three of them. SC Hunt again reminded the Applicant that Jayson was not a security guard and to stop referring to him as one. 3. SC Hunt said that alcohol was being consumed throughout the entire festival site and did not appear to be monitored in any way. Patrons where clearly seen walking around with bottles of beer, wine, pre-mixed drinks and straight spirits. The Applicant said he had no control over what alcohol was brought to the festival and that was left to the organizers. 4. SC Hunt said that the smell of cannabis was "rampant" throughout the festival and this was brought to the attention of the organizers, who agreed with Police that was what they could smelt. The Applicant said he was unsure what cannabis smelt like. 5. SC Hunt considered that there were "huge implications" for security of a large number of patrons consuming alcohol and using drugs; intoxicated and/or drug affected persons can be very unpredictable. He considered it would be virtually impossible to exercise control over of the consumption of alcohol at large festival such as this because it was a BYO festival, rather than a licensed festival. There could be no effective control over the locations where alcohol was consumed, or the amounts consumed. If it had been a licensed festival, the service of alcohol could be limited to specific areas and specific times; the sale of alcohol to intoxicated persons could be refused; and RSA personnel could observe patron behaviour and take appropriate action, including reporting unacceptable conduct to security officers. 6. SC Hunt said the site's lighting was inconsistent and there were a lot of dark areas. The site was powered by generators and wires were hanging from trees and along the ground. The ground was uneven in parts and there were wombat holes. 7. Medical staff informed SC Hunt that there was an incident of a naked patron displaying passive/aggressive behaviour on the dancefloor - a man was left in the care of a security guard and festival organizer. The affected person should, in SC Hunt's view, have been removed from the dance floor and taken to the medical station where he could be properly managed by medical staff. The Applicant said as a security guard he is unable to 'take someone away". If he had restrained the patron, he may have become violent and caused more trouble. The Dancwize people, he said, are "professionals". 8. During the course of his attendance, SC Hunt had occasion to speak to a patron who was wielding a metal sword. Whilst this was not used in an aggressive manner, an accidental injury to another patron could have occurred. He required the patron to put the sword in a safe place with organizers. I did not understand there to be any contention by the Respondent that the person was conducting himself in a dangerous manner, and the body-cam was not suggestive of any hazardous behaviour. 9. SC Hunt observed that there was no or inadequate radio communication at the site. There was no mobile phone reception at the location. There was one SAT phone which was owned by the medical team. Having 2 security guards and 1 RSA marshal covering 20 acres with no radio communications or phone reception in his opinion, was "potentially disastrous". In the festival of a brawl, a person becoming lost, a person over-dosing or an out-break of fire, security personnel would not be able to communicate with one-another for help. In addition, not having the ability to call for assistance from the Police, ambulance or the fire brigade aggravates the situation. Third visit: 1100 on 21 April 2019 1. SC Hunt and other Police arrived at the festival with Shoalhaven City Council officers (Council officers). The Council officers informed the festival organizers that they had breached land and environment regulations relating to the establishment and running of the festival. The body-cam showed a lack of signage such as for evacuation points, and such signs as were displayed were contradictory. SC Hunt said this would likely have been confusing for emergency vehicles if required to attend. Police and the Council officers made a decision to shut down the festival and informed the festival organizers. SC Hunt said that the festival organisers, while the Applicant was present, were told that they needed to keep security on until the last patron left. 2. The Applicant said whilst everyone was packing up their tents and belongings, he was performing security activities: walking around and monitoring the patrons - ensuring that everyone was safe. 3. During the shut down of the festival, SC Hunt said he had to explain to the Applicant and Jayson numerous times why the festival was shut down. He also said Saif, who is aged 19, told him that he knew better then Police when it came to running security at the festival. Fourth visit: 1600 on 21 April 2019 1. SC Hunt said he was met by Jayson who, in his view, seemed to be the one taking control of the security. He asked if there was any security on duty and Jayson pointed to Saif who was standing next to him. The security activities were to assist the patrons leaving the festival safely. Saif, at the time, was not wearing any security vest or similar security attire and was not wearing/displaying any security licence ID. He was dressed in black clothing and when addressed, looked up very slowly; SC Hunt thought he could hardly keep his eyes open. He observed him to have a pale, almost greenish, look to his face and his eyes were heavily bloodshot. He speech was very slow and hard to hear. His body movements where slow and "loose". SC Hunt considered that he was "well affected" by an illicit drug or was severely lacking in sleep. There appeared to be no other licensed security personnel on duty. He would not have considered Saif fit to perform security duties that day. 2. The SI Act requires a master licensee to prepare and implement a fitness for work policy that covers the use of alcohol and other drugs by persons provided by the licensee to carry on security activities. SC Hunt said he had not been provided with or seen any fitness for work policy prepared by the Applicant, in which the Applicant might have assessed Saif's fitness for work. Fifth police attendance: 1000 on 22 April 2019 1. SC Hunt conducted a final inspection of the festival to ensure the closure orders were being complied with. These included that the security continued until the last patron had left the location. He observed Saif standing to the side of the main walkway, wearing his security licence identification on his left arm. He was dressed in full black clothing and a well-worn orange vest with the letters 'RSA' on the front and back in black permanent marker. When this was brought to his attention, he blamed the mistake on being tired and minimal lighting when getting dressed. SC Hunt observed him to be "totally different" to the night before in that he talked more and was clearer. 2. SC Hunt concluded that by taking on this job as the master licencee, the Applicant's lack of organisation, lack of employment of security guards, lack of completing a satisfactory SM Plan, has placed over 1200 civilian lives at serious risk of injury and/or death. The Respondent's contentions as why the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a security licence. 1. The Respondent relied on several particular aspects of the Applicant's conduct at the festival to support its contention that he is not a fit and proper person to hold any security licence. The Applicant's conduct was said to clearly demonstrate that the Applicant has no concept of what constitutes a satisfactory approach, both as a security guard and as a master licence holder, to the provision of security services. His deficiencies, it was submitted, compromised the safety of members of the public and also the safety of the other licence holders. It was submitted that until such time as the Applicant can demonstrate an acceptable level of understanding, he should not be entitled to hold a licence under the SI Act. Failure to ascertain whether the festival had a development consent 1. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant should have established whether the festival required, and if so, whether it had obtained, development consent, and what conditions applied to the staging of the festival. Development consent conditions may affect security operations e.g. alcohol licensing requirements; hours of operation; noise conditions; limits on crowd size; requirements for the preparation of a SM Plan. It was submitted that his participation in a festival that had no lawful approval does not reflect well upon him. 2. It was conceded by the Applicant that he did not make the enquiry as to whether development consent had been obtained by the festival organizers. When deciding to volunteer at this festival, the Applicant said he discussed the services that would be available to the patrons at the festival with the festival organizers. The Applicant was aware that there were a number of other services available to patrons to assist in keeping the patrons safe at the festival. These services included: a fully registered medical tent, child care facilities, chill out spaces and Dancewize volunteers. The evidence before the Tribunal is that there were a number of services available to the patrons, some of which were government-funded agencies such as Dancewize, which worked together to keep the patrons at the festival safe. 3. It was noted on the Applicant's behalf that when the Police attended on 20 April 2019, at 18:26, one of the Police officers can be heard on the video-cam saying "This isn't a too bad of a set up, they just didn't follow the right rules". 4. It was conceded that whilst it would have been prudent to check whether consent had been given, the Applicant claimed to have taken a "practical approach" to assessing whether there were sufficient resources to ensure the safety of the patrons, which was his primary objective. 5. The Applicant said that this was the first festival that he undertook using his master security licence, although he also said he had used that licence before for a very small event over 1-2 days. His relative inexperience was noted. Manifestly and grossly understaffing 1. The Event Management Plan contemplated the attendance of up to 1500 persons, being 300 persons participating in the production and 1200 patrons, and that security would comprise "rostered on for duty range between two and four personnel". Even allowing for 12-hour shifts, at least 8 security personnel would be required. SC Hunt provided a less conservative assessment based upon his training and experience, that about 14 security guards, 4 RSA marshals and 4 user pay Police would be required for the festival. 2. The Applicant pointed out that there is no prescribed number of security personnel under the Act or the Regulation. At best, there are guidelines as to best practice, although no formal prescribed minimum number. It cannot be said that the Applicant has breached the Act or Regulation merely by the number of security personnel that were present at the festival. The Applicant referred to the conflict between the Respondent's submissions and SC Hunt's evidence. 3. Significantly, the Applicant submitted, the Respondent failed to provide any evidence that the number of security personnel present was adverse to the patrons' actual safety. Conversely, it was submitted, the body-cam images suggest that the crowd was well-behaved and incidents were isolated; overall, patrons were safe. 4. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that there were other services available at the festival to assist the security team in ensuring the patrons' safety. Failure to supervise point of festival entry 1. When Police arrived, the entry point was not manned by any security staff and no scanning of patrons or their possessions was conducted. The Respondent submitted that unruly/intoxicated persons could attend. There was no control over whether drugs or alcohol were brought into the festival. 2. The Applicant pointed out that there is no legislative requirement for security guards to man entry points to a festival. In the absence of a legislative requirement to do so, the Applicant submitted, it is difficult to see how this impugns the Applicant's character. No identifying clothing 1. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant, Saif and the 'RSA marshal', Jayson, were deliberately attired so as to blend in with the crowd: no Hi-Vis clothing nor identifying insignia were being worn when Police attended, although licences were usually worn. Even if this was a decision of the festival organisers, the Respondent submitted, the Applicant should not have accepted that decision. The Respondent submitted that visibility affords protection for the patrons and others; otherwise patrons would have no idea as to who to call upon in the festival of a security incident. 2. The Applicant pointed out that there is no legislative requirement for security guards to wear Hi-Vis clothing. In the absence of a legislative requirement to do so, it was submitted, it is difficult to see how this impugns the Applicant's character. Intoxicated on duty 1. When Police first attended the festival, the Applicant was said to have been moderately affected by alcohol. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant initially attempted to mislead Police about whether he had been drinking, by claiming he had used mouthwash, although the Applicant disputes this contention. The Respondent submitted that it is completely unacceptable for the Applicant to consume alcohol notwithstanding he was "off-duty", leaving only Saif to control some 1200 patrons and 300 festival staff. 2. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent's submission is grossly misconceived and unsubstantiated. It is clear from the evidence that the Applicant was not on duty at the time the exchange took place. 3. Furthermore, it was submitted, the SC Hunt made an arbitrary assessment of the Applicant's sobriety without any proper qualifications to do so. The Applicant disputed SC Hunt's ability to make an assessment as to a person's sobriety, and submitted that if SC Hunt thought that the applicant was intoxicated, then a simple breath sample could have definitively determined if that were the case. However, SC Hunt's evidence was that he Applicant was not breathalyzed because there is no power to breath test persons other than roadside: presumably a reference to Schedule 3 Road Transport Act 2013. SC Hunt gave evidence though of his experience as a licensing officer and assessment of sobriety. 4. Requiring the Applicant to be sober and alert at all times, the Applicant submitted, sets the bar too high for what is expected of a security guard, who is not on duty. There does not appear that there any significant issues at this festival (other than isolated incidents that were appropriately dealt with) which is indicative that the patrons were safe. There is no evidence to suggest that the patrons were not safe. No SM Plan 1. The Respondent submitted that, SM Plans are essential in order to ascertain, plan and to provide adequate resources for security contingencies. No SM Plan existed nor, it seems, was ever contemplated. 2. The Applicant pointed out that there is no legislative requirement for a SM Plan, and SC Hunt confirmed that this is the case, although he considered the development of a SM Plan to be "best practice" and said they are 'very common'. The Respondent's position was that such a plan is necessary to provide adequate resources for security contingencies, yet, the Applicant submitted, the Respondent ignored the other services available at the festival. No incident register 1. Regulation 34 of the Security Industry Regulation 2016 (SI Regulation) requires a master licence holder to keep an incident register, to record instances such as when a security guard makes forcible physical contact with, or physically restrains, a person. No such register was available at the festival. 2. The Applicant said that, as the festival was a one-off in a rural area and he was volunteering, he did not have with him his records that he kept in relation to his security activities. However, at all times during the festival, he had the means to record any incidents that may have occurred. He said it is his usual practice that should an incident occur where he needs to make a record, he does so immediately after the festival and then stores it with his usual business records. 3. He described the crowd at the festival, on the whole, as being very mature and relaxed individuals where no major trouble or incidents occurred. There were some incidents over the course of the festival, however these were isolated and were dealt with calmly and quickly so that the patrons attending the festival could enjoy themselves in a safe environment. They were no incidents that required him to keep a record of under the Act or Regulation. 4. The Applicant submitted that, in any event, he had the means to record incidents if they occurred. However, there were no incidents at the festival that were required to be recorded in the incident register. There is no statutory requirement that an incident register needs to come into existence until an incident occurs. RSA marshal 1. The Respondent submitted that Jayson was, for all intents and purposes, participating in the festival as a security officer. Although the Applicant said in his affidavit that he told the Police that [Jayson] is only a RSA marshal and he is not acting as a security officer, both the Police Event Report and the audio from the body-cam contradict this assertion. 2. Even if Jayson was at the festival as an RSA marshal, the Respondent submitted, the Applicant's reliance upon him was entirely misplaced. 3. Jayson presented to Police as being intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. Further, he was on remand for the supply of drugs. SC Hunt said this was a breach of Jayson's bail conditions. 4. Jayson was no stranger to the Applicant; they had known each other for a decade and Jayson had employed the Applicant. It would have been a simple, and prudent matter for the Applicant to enquire of Jayson what his criminal record was before working with him at the festival, the Respondent submitted. 5. The thrust of the Respondent's argument, the Applicant submitted, was that the Applicant is guilty by association with Jayson. There is nothing prohibiting Jayson from acting as an RSA marshal. Further, there is no evidence that Jayson did not competently perform his duties as an RSA marshal. No two-way communication 1. The Respondent contended that the security 'team' had no two-way radios and, as the festival was staged on a 20-acre site, without adequate communications, patrons were at risk. A lone security person would be unable to request assistance. 2. The Applicant responded that there were more than just security personnel monitoring patrons at the festival - Dancewize and medical volunteers also patrolled the site. Failure to take appropriate measures to assist person affected by drugs 1. Police were informed about a drug-affected patron who was naked and behaving erratically. The Respondent was critical of the Applicant leaving the person in the care of his friends. The Respondent contended that persons who are drug-affected are a potential danger to themselves and others and referred to the instances of deaths at festivals arising from drug use, what was described as "a well-known, repetitive and current problem". 2. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent's contention is erroneous in that it ignores the fact that the affected person was not just left with friends but with a medical attendant and Dancewize volunteers. The fact that nothing further came of this incident, with all staff working in unison to assist the patron, is indicative of the fact that the patron's health and welfare was paramount. The situation was not inflamed or exacerbated by security. Instead, the patron was said to have been removed from the dancefloor so that all other patrons were safe and he was monitored with appropriate medical personnel and friends to calm him down so that he did not cause harm to himself. 3. In summary, the Applicant contended that, when viewed in context of what is required of a security guard under the SI Act and Regulation, the Applicant, on the whole, complied with his obligations. Further, it was submitted, in the event that the Applicant breached his obligations under the SI Act or Regulation, any such breach is minor in nature and does not warrant the exercise of discretion to revoke the Applicant's licences, thereby affecting his livelihood. 4. The Applicant has worked for a number of different security companies since that time, estimating that during that time he had worked at over 1,000 events, including music concerts. Throughout his involvement in the security industry, he has never been the subject of a complaint nor has he been investigated or charged because of his conduct either performing security activities, or at all. He has no criminal record. He had applied for the present a master licence because he was looking to increase his ability to undertake larger jobs, which would provide him with a better income to support his family. He is the primary income earner in his family as his wife only works part time. Since his licences have been revoked he is currently working as a courier. His ability to earn a similar wage to that he could have earned in the security industry has been significantly diminished. Consideration of "fit and proper" 1. The SI Act establishes a scheme for licensing persons to carry on security activities. The objects of the Act and the public policy served by it were analysed in Ibrahim v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2009] NSWADT 245 at [47]: 47. The discretion to issue a licence must be exercised keeping in mind the activities that the person will be engaged in if the licence is granted. Accordingly, the objects and purposes of the Act are relevant, that is, the regulation of the security industry to maintain public safety and to ensure that those who are licensed to operate in the industry are appropriately qualified and persons of integrity: O'Neill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2005] NSWADT 130. The security industry has a special role in ensuring that public order is maintained, safeguarding community assets and private property and ensuring that public venues are safe: Haining v Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADT 6. 1. The meaning of "fit and proper person" in the licensing context has been the subject of a long line of cases dating back at least to Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No.2) [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127 and the meaning of the term has regularly been addressed by this Tribunal in respect of occupational matters. The principles laid down in those cases were distilled by the Tribunal's Appeal Panel in Austin v Commissioner of Fair Trading & Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAP 179, following SM Montgomery's reasons at first instance (albeit in relation to the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012), as follows: 1. The very purpose of the words "fit and proper" is to give the widest scope for judgment and for rejection on that ground. 2. "Fit" with respect to an office is said to involve honesty, knowledge and ability. 3. The expression "fit and proper" person, standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged in and the ends to be served by those activities. 4. Depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. 5. In certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question. 6. The expression meant that an applicant needed to show not only that he has the requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of the holder of the particular licence but also that he is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude to be accredited to the public as a person to be entrusted with the work the subject of the licence. 1. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321, Toohey and Gaudron JJ said at 380: The expression "fit and proper person", standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of "fit and proper" cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question. 1. In Sobey v Commercial Agents Board [1979] 22 SASR 70 Walters J said at 76: 76. In my opinion, what is meant by [the expression "fit and proper"] is that an applicant must show not only that he is possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities devolving upon him as the holder of the particular licence under the Act, but also that he is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public, without further inquiry, as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails. A person's fitness is to be considered in the light of the activities that the person will undertake. Fitness with respect to an office is said to involve honesty, knowledge and ability: see Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No.2) [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127 at 156 - 7. 1. The Applicant sought to stress, effectively, that his obligations were lessened because he was merely a volunteer at the festival. Fitness not restricted to business or employment actions. I agree with the Respondent that it matters not whether the Applicant was paid over and above his expenses for the services - the Applicant purported to be providing security services at the festival. 2. The Respondent contended that the Applicant's fitness is to be judged by the manner in which he performed/provided those security services. While this is informative, however, in my view, it is not determinative. In this regard I note that the Respondent relied solely on several particular aspects of the Applicant's conduct at the festival to support its contention that he is not a fit and proper person to hold any security licence, namely: * Failure to ascertain whether the festival had a development consent * Manifestly and grossly understaffing * Failure to supervise point of festival entry * No identifying clothing * Intoxicated on duty * No SM Plan * No incident register * RSA marshal * No 2-way communications * Failure to take appropriate measures to assist person affected by drugs 1. As the Applicant correctly pointed out, in respect of many of these matters, there was no statutory obligation to adopt the measures the Respondent contended were deficient. While some activities criticised by the Respondent may have been better managed, there was no evidence of deliberate subversion of the SI Act. 2. The Respondent suggested that the Applicant had attempted to mislead Police e.g. in relation to whether he had been drinking. The Applicant did not recall telling SC Hunt when awoken on the first visit that he had just used mouthwash, and it is clear that he quickly admitted that he had consumed alcohol. The Applicant's account that he had had some drinks at the end of his shift was unchallenged, and I accept that that is what he did. I do not consider whether the wisdom of his doing so in circumstances where only Saif was left performing security duties, is relevant to his 'fitness and propriety', but is addressed below in relation to the public interest. 3. Another concern raised by the Respondent, it seems to me, is the engagement of Jayson at the festival. It was unclear to me how Jayson came to have a role at the festival at all, other than that he was known to both Jed and the Applicant. While the Applicant may not have known the details of Jayson's criminal history, he knew that Jayson was precluded from holding a security licence. As such, the Applicant was either aware or should have been aware that Jayson was unable to fulfill any security role at the festival. It should be noted that there was no contention whatever that the Applicant had any involvement whatsoever in Jayson's nefarious activities. It is unclear if the Applicant personally referred to Jayson as fulfilling a security, as distinct from a RSA marshal, role. Saif, who, for all intents and purposes was the Applicant's employee for the event, clearly thought that Jayson was one of the security guards, and it seems, the Applicant did not disabuse him of that view. It is also possible that the organisers also regarded Jason (sic) as having such a role. From SC Hunt's evidence it appears Jayson was regarded, at least by the organisers and Saif, as part of the security team. Nonetheless, the Applicant's association with Jayson cannot be the basis of a finding that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a security licence. 4. The Applicant submitted that he has knowledge of his obligations under the SI Act and Regulation as they relate to him holding a master security licence. All the deficiencies pointed to by the Respondent, which were not the subject of a statutory obligation, do not detract from the Applicant's assertion. If there had been an intention that those matters considered by SC Hunt to be 'best practice' were obligatory, then the legislation would have made that clear. 5. I am satisfied that the Applicant possesses a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities as the holder of both a security licence and also a master licence. 6. Curiously, the Applicant provided no references which might have provided evidence of his good character. However, his failure to do so does not necessarily give rise to an adverse inference being drawn in accordance with Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. He has no criminal history whatsoever, nor has the Respondent made any contention impugning his character other than in association with the matters it raises in relation to the Applicant's conduct at the festival. There was no evidence of any psychological issues that might affect his judgment. 7. I am unable to find that the Applicant is not possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character to permit him to be entrusted with the kind of work that the licences entail: Sobey and IJ v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 230. 8. I therefore find that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licences having regard to the requirement under the SI Act. Consideration of public interest 1. The alternative ground for revoking the Applicant's licences was that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold them. Whereas it would be difficult to envisage circumstances where it would be in the public interest to for a person to hold a licence notwithstanding that he or she is not a "fit and proper" person, it is open to the Tribunal to find that, although a person has been found to be a "fit and proper" person to hold a licence under the SI Act, it is not necessarily in the public interest that they do so: see Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9, especially at [25], where the "fit and proper person' test was described as the test of 'character', whereas the "public interest" is an inherently broad concept. 2. The Applicant's conduct, the Respondent submitted, compromised the safety of members of the public and also the safety of the other licence holders. Beyond this general contention, the concept of "public interest' was not separately addressed by the Respondent, other than to observe that the public interest is greater than the interest of the individual who wishes to hold a licence. 3. In O'Sullivan v Farrer [1989] HCA 61; (1989) 168 CLR 210 at [13], the High Court held that consideration of the "public interest" imported a discretionary value judgment to be made by reference to undefined factual matters, confined only in so far as the subject matter and the scope and purpose of the legislation might require. Perhaps more helpfully, the Appeal Panel in Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16 in examining this issue in the context of a firearms licence, at [33], held: 33. The 'public interest' allows, we consider, for issues going beyond the character of the applicant to be taken into account. These may include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system. In this case the public interest case was a very strong one. The public would, we believe, be quite concerned that a man with a serious history of violence, including violence using weapons, for which he served several years' imprisonment might now be entrusted with a pistol. 1. The interest to be considered is that of the public as distinct from the interest of an individual. When considering fitness and propriety and the public interest, an Applicant's private interests, such as in obtaining access to a reliable or better income stream, receive no weight: Austin at [72] – [73]. The Applicant's personal interest in retaining his licences cannot outweigh the public interest in maintaining full confidence in the professionalism of those involved in the industry. All the circumstances of the conduct must be taken into account: Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218 at [22]; Blisset v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2006] NSWADT 114 at [32]. 2. In the context of this regulatory scheme, the purpose and scope of the legislation to be amplified is the attainment of a professional and safe security industry, free from persons who engage in unprofessional and irresponsible conduct. Paramount consideration is to be given to public safety: Infarinato v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 43 at [18]. 3. As the discretion must be exercised in light of the activities that the person will be engaging in, the Act's objects and purposes are relevant. They include the regulation of the security industry to maintain public safety and to ensure that those who are licensed to operate in it are appropriately qualified and persons of integrity: O'Neill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 130. As was pointed out in Haining at [22], the security industry has a special role in ensuring that public order is maintained, and that the public and public venues are safe. 4. The Applicant, as master licencee was responsible for security at the festival. That the event was held on a "private" property, as distinct from at a public venue is irrelevant; those attending were fee-paying, even if only to cover expenses, and I do not consider the festival to be properly characterised as a private function. That security was deployed at the event, no matter how low-key or whether on a volunteer basis, those attending were entitled to rely on the security services provided by the Applicant, as master licencee. That there were other volunteers also providing services with a view to ensuring the well-being of patrons, did not detract from the Applicant's responsibilities. That no major incident occurred was fortuitous, because it is highly doubtful that the Applicant, assisted only by Saif if on duty, could have appropriately managed the crowd. While the evidence was of a peaceful and harmonious event, the Applicant had no control over who was attending, the amount of alcohol they were bringing into the event, or if illegal drugs were being brought onto the property. 5. I do not accept that, after so many years in the security industry including attending at music festivals, the Applicant does not know what cannabis smells like. He apparently took no steps to address what SC Hunt described as the "rampant" consumption of cannabis. 6. The public interest also requires that a licencee, especially master licencee be aware of, and comply with, the legislative requirements: Cook v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 30 at [34] and Bottomley v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 211 at [20]. However, as I have observed, the Applicant's deficiencies do not relate to legislative non-compliance. It is clear though that he could have undertaken the role significantly more effectively. It would have been prudent to prepare a SM Plan following enquiries as to the alcohol licensing requirements; hours of operation; noise conditions; and limits on crowd size. A SM Plan was not, however, as the Respondent submitted, essential. The development of a SM Plan would have been desirable, especially as the Applicant's account of his preparation for the festival, and his plans for security measures were all but non-existent. The communications arrangements, for example, were haphazard in the extreme. 7. I also consider it was naïve to rely on the other services available to patrons to assist in keeping them safe, whether or not the festival was, as described by one of the attending Police as "not a too bad of a set up". Even on a conservative estimate, the number of security guards the Applicant provided was hopelessly inadequate for the size of the venue, the numbers present, and the duration of the event. As I have observed it was fortuitous that there was no major incident, and the evidence was of an overall peaceful event. The Applicant's case stressed that safety was his priority, and yet alcohol and drug consumption was unabated by any intervention by him or his 'team', either at the point of entry or at all. The fact that the Applicant personally imbibed was also inconsistent with his professed concerns for the safety of patrons, when he left only Saif in charge. I reject the Applicant's contention that requiring the Applicant to be sober and alert at all times, sets the bar too high for what is expected of a security guard who is not on duty. The Applicant was the person who was primarily responsible for security. Necessarily he took a break, but he retained the ongoing responsibility. I accept that there is no evidence to suggest that the patrons were not safe, but, in my view, that was fortuitous given the parlous state of the security services provided. 8. I accept that the organisers may have preferred the Applicant and his team to be inconspicuous in the provision of security services, but, again, his approach was naïve, especially in circumstances where his professed priority was safety. They were virtually incognito and would not have been readily identifiable so as to assist in the event of a crisis. 9. It is unclear if the Applicant was responsible for organizing a RSA marshal. In any event, there was no evidence that there was any legislative impediment to Jayson performing the role of RSA marshal. It appears the Applicant, in my view, again naively, relied on Jayson's role as RSA marshal to bolster the incognito security presence. That being the case, when Jayson presented to Police when intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, was unfortunate – the Applicant apparently had no control over him, in which case it was inappropriate to rely on him, in any capacity. 10. In relation to the management of a drug-affected patron about which the Respondent was critical, the circumstances of the patron's behaviour and his subsequent attention by volunteers and medical staff, do not lead me to the view that this incident reflects adversely on the Applicant. 11. While informal support arrangements at music festivals have been favourably commented on by the NSW State Coroner's Court in November 2019, it is not appropriate, in my view, for the Applicant to have been reliant upon those services in lieu of undertaking a proper security role. Those services can only be regarded as supplementary to the main security measures. 12. As one of the objects of the Act is to regulate security activities, licences are conditioned on the overriding need to ensure public safety and the protection of property. The Act was designed with the intention of providing the community with confidence in a professional security industry, where competence, integrity and accountability are provided and maintained to a high standard: Feuerstein v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2007] NSWADT 114 at [11]. In my view it cannot be in the public interest to have a person in an organisational role in the industry who so poorly discharges his obligations as a master licencee. In my view a member of the public knowing how the Applicant had gone about his role as the festival's main security provider would object to the Applicant performing the role of a master licensee: Farquharson v Director-General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 53 at [37]. 13. However, I have accepted that the Applicant has a long history in the industry, without any complaints against him. Presumably therefore he satisfactorily performed his role as a security guard throughout the years at the direction of one or more master licencees. I see no reason why it is not in the public interest for him to continue in such a role, that is, while under the supervision of a master licencee, but not as a master licencee himself. Conclusion 1. It therefore follows that on the assessment of all of the evidence before me, while the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a master licence, it is not in the public interest that he do so. However, the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold, and it is in the public interest to reinstate, the Applicant's Class 1ACE security licence. 2. As a result, the correct and preferable decision is for the Tribunal to affirm decision of the Commissioner in respect of the Applicant's master licence and to set aside the decision of the Commissioner in respect of the Applicant's Class 1AC security licence. Orders 1. The decision to revoke the Applicant's master security licence is affirmed. 2. The decision to revoke the Applicant's 1AC security licence is set aside and the Respondent is to re-instate the Applicant's Class 1AC security licence. ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 03 March 2023