Naziry v Director General, Ministry of Transport [2004] NSWADT 40

CITATION: Naziry v Director General, Ministry of Transport [2004] NSWADT 40 DIVISION: General Division APPLICANT PARTIES: Rohulla Naziry RESPONDENT Director General, Department of Transport FILE NUMBER: 033295 HEARING DATES: 11/11/2003 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 11/11/2003 DATE OF DECISION: 03/01/2004

BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Passenger Transport Act - taxi operator - cancellation of accreditation - Taxi operator - cancellation of accreditation MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED : Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Passenger Transport Act 1990 Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 CASES CITED: Saadieh v Director-General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68 Re T and the Director of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Maythisathit v Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1996) ACT 165 APPLICANT REPRESENTATION: N Mason-Jones, solicitor RESPONDENT A Wozniak, solicitor ORDERS: The decision of the Director General, Ministry of Transport to cancel the Taxi Accreditation number 23727 held by Mr Rohulla Naziry is affirmed.

Background 1 Mr. Rohulla Naziry held Taxi Accreditation number 23727 ("the Accreditation") under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 ("the Act"). By a Notice to Show Cause dated 29 September 2003 ("the Notice to Show Cause") a delegate of the Director-General of the Ministry of Transport ("the Director-General") advised Mr Naziry that the Ministry of Transport ("the Ministry") was considering the cancellation of the Accreditation. A Statement of Reasons accompanied the Notice to Show Cause and Mr Naziry was invited to make submissions as to why that decision should not be made. 2 Mr. Mason-Jones, the solicitor acting on behalf of Mr Naziry, made detailed submissions to the Director-General in response to the Notice to Show Cause. By letter dated 20 October 2003 Mr. Naziry was notified of the Director-General's decision to cancel the Accreditation. The reasons for the decision to cancel Mr. Naziry's Accreditation were set out in the statement of reasons attached to the Notice. Those reasons stated: " Facts, Evidence and Material The Ministry relies on the following facts, evidence and material when considering the cancellation of your operator accreditation 23727. Evidence of the above facts is in the form of: On 16 September 2003 you attended the office of the Taxi & Hire Car Bureau in relation to an application for a Hire Car authority. You were informed at the time that your NSW driver licence was suspended on 11 September 2003. You were also informed that you were not to drive a public passenger vehicle. However, you drove taxi T3264 immediately after attending the Bureau. Records obtained from Taxi Combined Services also show that you drove taxi T3264 without an appropriate authority and suspended NSW driver licence on the 12, 13, 14 and 15 of September 2003 On 17 September 2003 you drove a public passenger vehicle without a current NSW driver licence and appropriate driver authority. The NSW Police subsequently arrested you at the Hornsby Taxi Rank for driving whilst disqualified and you were conveyed to Hornsby Police Station for questioning then issued a Court Attendance Notice. Information from the Roads & Traffic Authority shows that on 11 September 2003 your NSW driver licence 9408ZL was suspended for Demerit Points until 11 December 2003. Under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 a driver's authority card does not have any effect while the person's driver licence is suspended or cancelled. You have failed to inform the Ministry of Transport as required under Clause 36 (1) of the Passenger Transport (Taxi-cab Services) Regulations 2001 that your NSW driver licence was suspended / disqualified. Advice received from you that on Wednesday 17 September 2003 you were issued a Court Attendance Notice to attend Hornsby Local Court on 15 October 2003 in relation to allegations that you drove taxi T3264 while you NSW driver licence was suspended. Evidence of the above facts is in the form of: Roads and Traffic Authority records Ministry of Transport records TCS records Applicable Law Section 31F of the Passenger Transport Act 1990: Having regard to the purpose of accreditation under this Division. The Director General may at any time vary, suspend or cancel any person's accreditation under this Division. That purpose is set out in section 31 of that Act. This means that, for the purpose of your case: The purpose of accreditation under this division is to attest: (a) that the accredited person is (or, in the case of an accredited person that is a corporation, the designated directors and managers of the corporation are) considered to be of good repute and in all other respects fit and proper to be responsible for operation of a taxi-cab service, and (b) that the accredited person has demonstrated the capacity to meet and continue to meet the appropriate requirements with respect to: (i) financial viability, and (ii) safety of drivers, passengers and the public, and (iii) vehicle maintenance, to the degree and in the manner required in respect of services of the kind specified in the authorisation. The Reasoning Processes that lead to the decision. The fact that you continued to drive a public passenger vehicle after being advised and instructed by Bureau staff that your NSW driver licence and taxi driver authority were both suspended casts grave doubts about your fitness to be an operator of public passenger vehicles, and of your ability to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the position according to law and custom. On 15 October 2003, you pleaded guilty to driving while your NSW licence was suspended. No excuse was offered. I have very carefully considered your response to the Notice to Show Cause. Generally, the lengthy submission seeks to separate the offence of driving a taxi with a suspended driver licence and the responsibilities of a taxi operator. Despite knowing that your licence was cancelled, you continued to drive taxi T3264. Not only did you drive the taxi, but also you carried out numerous hirings carrying passengers. On the 17 September 2003, you knowingly used a false pin number identifying you as another person, allowing you to gain access to radio bookings. This demonstrates little regard for law or taxi operator accreditation standards. This deliberate and premeditated act to deceive the taxi network clearly demonstrates a lack of responsibility and honesty. This also demonstrates that you are prepared to breach taxi network rules for personal gain. A taxi operator must ensure that persons driving the taxi-cabs are authorised taxi drivers and hold a current driver licence. Operators are also required to monitor and ensure drivers comply with any requirement they are subject to. The fact that you did not comply with the required standards and law yourself casts serious doubt on your ability to ensure other drivers comply with the standards. Based on the above facts and law it can no longer be attested that you are considered to meet the required standards for authorisation as a taxi operator." 3 Mr Naziry applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Director-General's decision. Nature of proceedings 4 The issue for this Tribunal is: what is the correct and preferable decision? The Tribunal undertakes a review of the merits of the original decision, with the obligation to reconsider all the material first considered, together with any further relevant material, so as to either confirm the original decision, vary it, or set it aside and substitute another. "The duty of the tribunal is to satisfy itself whether a decision in respect of which an application for review is duly instituted is a decision which in its view was objectively the right one to be made" (Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60 at 77). 5 These are not adversarial proceedings in which Mr. Naziry carries an onus of proof. Mr. Naziry, by making the application, triggers a process of merits review by the Tribunal. Mr. Naziry does not take on the responsibility of having to prove a case, nor does he cause the Director General to have to prove a case. Mr. Naziry and the Director General are before the Tribunal as parties by virtue of section 67(2) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ("the ADT Act"). 6 Section 63(1) of the ADT Act provides: "63 Determination of review by Tribunal (1) In determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following: (a) any relevant factual material, (b) any applicable written or unwritten law. (2) For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant enactment on the administrator who made the decision.(3) In determining an application for the review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide: (a) to affirm the reviewable decision, or(b) to vary the reviewable decision, or(c) to set aside the reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the reviewable decision it set aside, or(d) to set aside the reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal." 7 With respect to the cancellation of the Accreditation, Mr Naziry asserts that: "the Director-General erred and denied me natural justice by taking into account matters not laid before me when I was given a Notice to Show Cause why my accreditation should not be cancelled, and erred when considering the impact of the facts of matters known and made known to him or her on his or her ability to attest to all matters required to enable me to continue to hold a taxi operator accreditation." 8 The Tribunal makes its own decision in place of the Director General's, and there is no presumption that the decision of the Director General is correct: (McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 at 357). 9 When there is a fact in issue as to the existence of which the Tribunal must be satisfied, it must be satisfied to the civil standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities: (McDonald at 357). Applicable Legislation 10 The Act sets out the applicable law. Division 3 in Part 4 of the Act makes provision for accreditation as a taxi-cab operator. Section 31 of the Act provides: " Accreditation 31 (1) The Director-General may accredit persons for the purpose of carrying on taxi-cab services, subject to and in accordance with this Division. A person accredited under this Division is referred to in this Part as an ``accredited taxi-cab operator''. (2) The purpose of accreditation under this Division is to attest: (a) that the accredited person is (or, in the case of an accredited person that is a corporation, the designated directors and managers of the corporation are) considered to be of good repute and in all other respects fit and proper to be responsible for the operation of a taxi-cab service, and (b) that the accredited person has demonstrated the capacity to meet and continue to meet the appropriate requirements with respect to: (i) financial viability, and (ii) safety of drivers, passengers and the public, and (iii) vehicle maintenance, to the degree and in the manner required in respect of services of the kind specified in the accreditation. (3) The appropriate requirements are: (a) such requirements as may be prescribed by the regulations, and (b) the standards determined under section 31E." 11 Section 31F of the Act states: " Variation, suspension or cancellation of accreditation 31F(1) Having regard to the purpose of accreditation under this Division, the Director-General may at any time vary, suspend or cancel any person's accreditation under this Division. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Director-General may vary, suspend or cancel a person's accreditation under this Division: (a) for failure to comply with a service requirement imposed by the taxi-cab network with which the operator is affiliated, but only if the Director-General is satisfied that the requirement is reasonable and necessary to enable the network to comply with its obligations imposed by or under this Act, and (b) for failure to comply with a service standard requiring compliance with the applicable contract determination, and (c)for failure to pay a financial sanction imposed under the standards under this Division. (3) The accreditation of a corporation is automatically cancelled when there is no designated director or manager." Mr Naziry's case 12 Mr Naziry appeared at the hearing and was subjected to cross-examination. In relation to his driving record and the August 2003 notice of suspension Mr Naziry said that he had not received the notice of suspension and knew nothing about the suspension until 16 September 2003. On that day he attended the Taxis and Hire Car Bureau Office of the Ministry ("the Bureau") and had discussions about the matter with Mr Ross Maloney and Ms Patricia Smith. He also stated that he had not received earlier letters from the Ministry and the RTA because he had been in Queensland for several months and changed his address when he returned. Correspondence from the Ministry and the RTA was sent to his old address and therefore he did not receive it. 13 Mr Naziry stated that his wife cannot read or write and so his son deals with the mail. When his wife collects the mail she gives it to their son to see if there is anything that requires urgent attention. After the discussions on 16 September 2003 he made inquiries of his son about whether there's any mail from the RTA regarding a suspension. It was only then that his son brought him a letter from the RTA regarding the suspension. He was unaware of the suspension before that time. Mr Naziry agreed that it was his responsible to collect his mail but stated that at the time he was driving his taxi from sunrise to sunset and it was often difficult for him to do so. 14 Under cross-examination by Mr Wozniak Mr Naziry said that he attended the Bureau's office on 16 September 2003 to enquire about his application for a hire car licence. At that time he had discussions with Mr Maloney or Ms Smith in which he was told that his licence had been suspended and that he was not permitted to drive a taxi. He denied that he had told either Mr Maloney or Ms Smith that he was not driving a taxi. Mr Naziry said that he told Mr Maloney that he was driving. He said that he was in uniform and that if he had known that his licence had been suspended he would not gone to the Bureau's office. He also denied that he had known about the suspension before that time. 15 He agreed that Mr Maloney had told him that his licence was suspended. He said that Mr Maloney told him that the licence would be cancelled and that he should talk to a lawyer. 16 Mr Naziry conceded that he was told that he could not drive. Nevertheless he continued to drive and accepted passengers. He also agreed that he was driving the next day. He commenced at 5:30 AM and drove all day. He said he did so because he was trying to find somebody to take over his taxi. He said that the only way to find drivers is to go to the ranks. He conceded that he did not need to pick up passengers and that it was a mistake to have done so. He also agreed that he would have continued driving until he had found a driver. 17 When asked by Mr Wozniak whether he had ever lost his licence prior to September 2003, Mr Naziry said that he could not remember. He said that he only found out at the hearing that he had lost his licence in 2000. He said that he did not know until 16 September 2003 that his licence had been suspended because of demerit points. He agreed that he had been driving everyday whilst suspended. 18 When Mr Naziry was shown his application for a hire car licence he agreed that on the application form he had indicated that he had previously lost his licence for demerit points. Mr Naziry said that the information he had provided related to a loss of licence prior to 2000. 19 Mr Naziry agreed that when driving a taxi the driver uses a personal identification number ("PIN") that allows the identity of the driver to be checked. He said that on 17 September 2003 he used a PIN that belonged to a driver named "Steve". Mr Naziry conceded that this was dishonest. He also agreed that it was not honest to drive after he had been told that he was not allowed to do so. He said that it was a mistake that he regretted. While he agreed that he had continued to drive until he had been stopped, he did not agree that he would have continued if he had not been stopped. 20 Mr Naziry relies on the statement of fact contained in the affidavit of Mr Mason-Jones and the written submissions prepared on his behalf in relation to the application for internal review. Mr Naziry affirmed that the statements of fact contained in those submissions are true. Those submissions stated: " Good repute [T]he Director-General should proceed on the basis that there is no evidence allowing for a finding other than that Mr Naziry is a person of good repute under the relevant legislation. Why 1. Until 16 September 2003 matters in which Mr Naziry has come under notice of the Ministry in the nearly four years of his holding a taxi operator accreditation relate only to minor breaches of conditions and regulations (failure to fit a camera safety device, to fit decals to the side of his taxi cab and to replace a defective taxi sign bulb) 2. None of those matters call into question Mr Naziry's general good repute 3. Other than the driving on 16 and 17 September there have been no complaints from any quarter over the 15 years of Mr Naziry's taxi driving on any other basis (for example, failure to turn meters on, overcharging, unlawful multiple hirings and the like) 4. There have been no complaints from any quarter or events happening over the 15 years of Mr Naziry's taxi driving which casts the slightest doubt on his honesty in financial dealings (for example, false dealings with dockets, Cab Charge matters and the like) 5. In the year leading up to the 7 August 2003 Demerits Points suspension of his NSW driver licence, apart from two Traffic Infringement Notices (both for driving so as to exceed the speed limit by not more than 15 km/h), there is no relevant evidence of any action by Mr Naziry which might have caused a danger to passengers, drivers or the public 6. It is over five years since Mr Naziry was before any Court on driving matters. (In 1997 he was convicted of two counts of driving so as to exceed the speed limit by more than 15 km/h and fined $400 on both counts) 7. Any other traffic convictions were entered about 15 years ago, before Mr Naziry held a taxi driver authority and long before he held a taxi operator accreditation 8. None of the Court convictions are relevant to Mr Naziry's current reputation since none occurred near the sector of his life that is under review in the proposed cancellation action. "Fit and proper" This value judgment requires an evaluation by the Director-General of Mr Naziry's driving and other conduct, more particularly over the 12 to 17 September 2003 period. When determining fitness and propriety what must he borne in mind are the activities that Mr Naziry will or could be engaged in if his taxi operator accreditation is not cancelled. A central feature of the taxi industry in New South Wales (and elsewhere in Australia) not to be lost sight of when considering activities that could be engaged in is that the travelling public can only ever contract with and be driven by: - a taxi cab driver who is both operator and driver of the cab, or - a taxi cab driver who is the bailee of the operator of the cab and in no other case: De Luxe Red & Yellow Cabs Co-Operative (Trading) Society Ltd & Ors -v- Commissioner of' Taxation [1997] 840 FCA (28 August 1997) (Federal Court of Australia on remittance by the High Court of Australia). Because of the recent cancellation of his taxi driver authority Mr Naziry will not be able to drive a taxi cab owned or leased by him or bailed to him until he holds that authority. Because of the three month suspension of his NSW driver licence with effect from 11 September 2003 Mr Naziry will until at least 12 December 2003 or thereafter be unable to have his NSW driver licence returned to him and thus apply for a taxi driver authority. On 15 October 2003 on his pleading guilty to the charge of drive while his licence was suspended the Local Court of NSW ordered under Section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 that Mr Naziry should enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for two years and that on any breach of the bond he should come before the Court for sentence. The effect of the order was to leave undisturbed the three month suspension of Mr Naziry's NSW driver licence by the Roads & Traffic Authority. To say that Mr Naziry might conceivably drive a vehicle if he continues to operate an accredited taxi cab service as a non-driver in a managerial capacity is a supposition that is not supported by any evidence that has not been answered by the statements of facts in these submissions. To be borne in mind are: 1. the Court-stated certainty that on any breach of the bond and return for sentencing Mr Naziry would be convicted, thereby being disqualified from holding any NSW driver licence for at least 12 months from that point, and 2. The strong possibility that Mr Naziry would be imprisoned if the breach of the bond arose from a conviction of the offence of driving while having a suspended licence. That certainty and that strong possibility did not exist when Mr Naziry drove his taxicab on 16 and 17 September 2003. Accordingly the Director-General should determine that: 1. Until such time as he holds a NSW driver licence it is extremely Unlikely that Mr Naziry will drive any motor vehicle: and 2. Even after holding a NSW driver licence then until such time as he successfully gains a taxi driver authority it is extremely unlikely that Mr Naziry will drive a taxi cab, whether his or one bailed to him. The offending driving conduct of Mr Naziry under review took place over: - four days in which Mr Naziry was clearly unaware (see later) of his licence suspension, and - two days in which Mr Naziry was aware that his NSW driver licence had been suspended. The offending driving conduct is an isolated incident, despite that it occurred over two days. There is no antecedent pattern of the offending driving conduct or anything like it. The conclusion that should and must be drawn by the Director-General is that the likelihood of the offending driving conduct being repeated by Mr Naziry in his capacity as a non-driving managing proprietor of a taxi cab service is so small as to be the remotest prospect. In cases of review by the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal of the decisions of the Director-General passages from a number of other leading cases are cited with approval. They should guide the Director-General in deciding Mr Naziry's matter. Two cases, of importance in Mr Naziry's matter not for so much from any comparison of facts leading to the cases being heard, but for an examination of what it is that the Director-General must do when deciding "fit and proper" issues are Farquharson -v- Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 53 and Mavihisathit and Registrar of Motor Vehicles [1996] AATACT 165. In Farquharson Judge O'Connor, the President of the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal said: "36 In exercising its responsibilities for passenger transport regulation, the administrator must take account of likely (emphasis added by submissions drafter) perceptions of the travelling public. A member of the travelling public is likely to be concerned to know that the driver (same) of their taxi is facing trial on a murder charge, albeit one involving soliciting rather than the act itself" "One object of the power of suspension is to provide assurance to the travelling public that they will not unknowingly find themselves travelling with a person (same) suspected of and charged with a serious criminal offence of violence " The facts in Farquharson were quite different to the facts in Mr Naziry's matter but the principle in Farquharson that should be used as a starting point in Naziry is that it is the need of assurance to the travelling public that is the key to "fit and proper". A broadly similar approach was taken in Maythisathit. Professor LJ Curtis, the President of the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal put the test to be applied in relation to "fit and proper character" in the case of taxi driver licensing this way: "One must put oneself, so far as possible, in the position of a member of the public who might travel in a taxi driven by the applicant (emphasis added by submissions drafter) and ask whether that member of the public, knowing of the applicants criminal record and what he had done in the past year to rehabilitate himself would object to the applicant as the driver (same) of the taxi" Though Maythisathit was a "rehabilitation of an offending driver" case, an aspect that does not apply in Mr Naziry's case (because the offending conduct has happened only within the last month) the same principle that was laid down in Farquharson was applied: meeting the needs of the travelling public, as far as the driver of their taxi is concerned, is the pillar on which "fit and proper" testing stands. If Mr Naziry is to remain the holder of a taxi operator accreditation but has his taxi cab driven by others the question of whether a member of the travelling public might find themselves driven by Mr Naziry will never arise. What is left is a consideration by the Director-General of the needs of the travelling public, examined this way, by paraphrasing the above passages in Maythisathit: "One must put oneself, so far as possible, in the position of a member of' the public who might contract with a driver who had gained the rijht to use the taxi from an owner/lessee who had lost the right to drive and ask whether that member of the public, knowing of the reasons for the owner/lessee's inability to drive, would object to being conveyed in the owner/lessee's taxi" On any basis of fact and law that question must be answered "No". One decision of the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal could be seen by some - erroneously - to have held otherwise. The case is Ratay -v- Director General, Department of Motor Transport [2003] NSWADT 40 (under appeal). Whatever the outcome of the appeal in the case it is not an authority that gives any guidance to how to answer the above question. Ratay was a case in which a person holding both a taxi driver authority and a taxi operator accreditation had likely been involved in a minimum of 140 frauds against the Department of Veterans Affairs as a targeted client over six months. (Mr Ratay pleaded guilty to 50 counts of fraud charge against him in a prosecution of him in the Local Court). What was examined in Ratay when looking at a "fit and proper" determination was the need of the community to have confidence that taxi operators would be scrupulous in their financial dealings, given that the industry is particularly one in which honesty is required. As Judicial Member Molony said "a member of the public would be justifiably concerned at the prospect of having to deal with Mr Ratay in those circumstances". In Ratay it was not a question of a member of the travelling public being assured that their proximity to one taxi cab driver or another would not be a concern of the traveller. It was a question whether dishonest people should be permitted to operate taxi cab services at all, having regard to the wider public's needs, not just those travelling in taxis. There is no issue of the Ratay kind in Mr Naziry's case. There have been only two instances in the last 13 years in which one could possibly argue that Mr Naziry has been less than frank or has been dishonest. In one case the argument, strained as it would have to be, would fail. In the other a fleeting moment of untruth should be weighed against a general history of honesty. The balance should come down heavily on the side of Mr Naziry being honest on an overall basis. The two instances were these: 1. In 1990 Mr Naziry gave an incorrect answer to a question addressed to him by a departmental form (of application for a taxi driver authority). He answered "no" to a question asking whether he had been disqualified froth driving in the preceding 10 years. He had in fact been disqualified for 3 months in 1986, in unusual circumstances relating to a vehicle being driven by a brother of his. This was before Mr Naziry gained the predecessor of the modern day taxi driver authority. But in 1993 he correctly answered the same question at a time of renewal of his taxi driver authority. The earlier answer must therefore be seen as one that was likely merely incorrect, arising from oversight, given that it was corrected at the time of next application, by which time Mr Naziry had a lot to lose if the answer was held against him. Even if there was or could be a suspicion that the answer given 13 years ago was untruthful, in the sense of a conscious withholding of facts from the then Department, the suspicious behaviour was at a time far removed from any latter day examination of Mr Naziry's probity. 2. On 16 September 2003, when at the Taxi and Hire Car Bureau ("the Bureau") of the Ministry a counter staffer asked Mr Naziry whether he was "still driving", receiving the answer "no". This was untrue and misleading. Mr Naziry knew that to be the case. Moments later another staff member asked the same question, receiving the answer "yes". Firstly, the misleading answer should not be seen as evidence that Mr Naziry knew that he should not be driving (see below under "credibility"). Secondly, the momentary lapse was one from a 15 year history of acting honestly and frankly and the only one, at that. The Director-General should therefore determine that on the side of general honesty Mr Naziry is fit and proper, despite the momentary lapse. In relation to the facts of the 12 to 17 September period l. Mr Naziry discloses that he drove his taxi cab over 12, 13, 14, and 15 September as well as the dates referred to in the Show Cause Notice 2. When he drove his taxi on each of the days until such time as he visited the Bureau he was unaware of any action taken or proposed to be taken by the Roads & Traffic Authority in relation to his NSW driver licence 3. Until the evening of 16 September 2003 he had neither seen and therefore had not read nor heard of the existence of any licence suspension notice from the Roads & Traffic Authority 4. Mr Naziry's wife is illiterate in all languages, including her mother tongue from Afghanistan. She deals with items coming to the house, however they are addressed (she not knowing how they are addressed) by opening all envelopes and having the eldest child in the family, an 11 year old, read them after school. The child is then to tell its mother the substance of materials coming to the house in case of need for urgent action 5. Mrs Naziry is to then refer all materials to Mr Naziry, whether important or unimportant 6. On the evening of 16 September 2003 Mr Naziry asked the 11 year old son whether he had seen anything in the household's incoming mail from the Roads & Traffic Authority. Mr Naziry was told by the boy that a letter from the Authority had been seen by the child but that he had put the letter on a wardrobe his bedroom, without telling his mother or father 7. A context for the above is that Mr Naziry habitually (or at least very often, if not almost always) starts his taxi driving before dawn each day. He then drives six days a week over the whole of the day. He generally returns home after 8:00 PM each evening, sometimes not until 10:00 PM or later 8. In relation to the driving of a motor vehicle after the 16 September visit to the Bureau Mr Naziry acknowledges that that was wrongful and irresponsible in his own personal interest 9. As he left the Bureau on 16 September he had a feeling of deep dismay about being in trouble on the subject of his taxi authorities but yielded to the temptation to drive back to the Hornsby area to start the process of looking for someone to take care of driving his taxi. His aim was to look for one or more drivers and that is what he in fact did on 16 and 17 September. He was tempted to take hires while doing that, given that on each day at least $180 had to be found to pay for the operational costs of the taxi business 10. In relation to the driving on 17 September, when on 15 October 2003 the Local Court dealt with his guilty plea Mr Naziry instructed his solicitor to neither offer any excuse nor make any plea of mitigation of penalty other than on custodial aspects and prospective Financial hardship grounds. That was the manner in which the plea was conducted. The fundamental credibility of Mr Naziry's account Had he known of the proposed suspension Mr Naziry would have been able to take one of two simple steps directed at keeping his NSW driver licence, namely appeal the matter taxi operator accreditation Court or elect to sign a 12 month Good Behaviour Bond with the Roads & Traffic Authority. The Bond step would have assuredly retained his NSW driver licence. Had he known of the proposed licence suspension on or before 11 September 2003 it is inconceivable that Mr Naziry would not have taken the licence-retaining action. It is unlikely to the highest degree that he would have presented himself to the Bureau on 16 September had he known at that time of the start to the licence suspension that had occurred on 11 September. It is inescapable that the Director-General should determine that that the wrongful driving after 11 September up to the departure from the bureau on 16 September was innocent and not a basis to hold that Mr Naziry is not fit and proper. Non-notification of Director-General of licence suspension The lack of awareness was the reason. The non-notification should therefore be determined to be innocent and not relevant to the re-examination of "fit and proper". A narrow focus The issue that should be resolved by the Director-General is whether the wrongful driving over the two days immediately after Mr Naziry learned of his licence suspension is sufficient to deny Mr Naziry the opportunity of operating a taxi cab service in a non-driving capacity until such time as he is successful in gaining a NSW driver licence, so that he can embark on updating and refresher training to then seek a taxi driver authority. There was no pattern of wrongful conduct. In the absence of repeated breaches no inference can be drawn that Mr Naziry felt that he was above the law or need not comply with the legislative and other obligations cast on the operator of an operator of a taxi cab service. It is submitted that the wrongful driving, though serious, is not enough to remove Mr Naziry from the taxi industry entirely. The needs of protection of the public would in no way be served by doing so. Closure The Director-General should decide to take no further action to cancel Mr Naziry's taxi operator accreditation." 21 Several testimonials were put in evidence in support of Mr Naziry. Each of the testimonials asserts that the author has found Mr Naziry to be a courteous, careful and safe driver as well as honest and trustworthy. 22 Mr Mason-Jones provided an affidavit in which he deposed that he had spoken to the authors of several of those testimonials. He stated that he spoke with Mr Jonathon Purchas, Manager, of the Silver Service taxi company, Mr John Cover, Mr Bruce Degenhardt, Mr John De Bree, Mr Paul Clerici, and Ms Jeannine Fowler. He told them about the circumstances that had resulted in the cancellation of Mr Naziry's taxi driver authority and the Accreditation and the nature and purpose of these proceedings. Mr Mason-Jones stated that he then asked each of these individuals whether they wanted to withdraw or qualify their testimonials in any way. He stated: "7. Each said various words to me, the relevant ones being to this effect: a. that they wanted to have it made clear by me that they did not condone the offences and wrongful actions of the applicant and that they disapproved them, b. that despite the knowledge of the wrong-doing (two saying that they knew already of most of the events recounted to them) as far as the period in which the applicant had served them as a taxi driver his actions and honesty had been of the highest order (my words to summarise, since some said "exemplary" and one said "impeccable") c. that they stood by their statements of the character and repute of the applicant, despite his wrong-doing over 16 and 17 September, and d. that they hoped to use the applicant's services again if he was permitted to operate or drive a taxi, whenever that might be possible, if it was. 8. The Mr Paul Clerici I spoke to also said to me words to this effect: a. that he had a medical condition requiring dialysis at the Sydney Adventist Hospital three times a week, that he was "separated" and that he regularly needed to use a taxi to have his children brought to him for access exercise, b. that in the past he had used other drivers who he trusted to be alone with young children but that they had both retired, c. that the applicant was the only person he fully trusted to be alone with young children." 23 Mr Mason-Jones also put in evidence the By-Laws of the Combined Communications Network. He referred to paragraph 4 of those By-Laws which deals with the issue of drivers using another driver's PIN. Paragraph 4 states: "4. Any 'Taxi Driver who enters a Driver Identification Number which is not identical with the number issued to that Taxi Driver by the Manager, Communications Centre, or the appointed delegate, shall be suspended for seven (7) shifts for the first offence, fourteen (14) shifts for the second offence and twenty-eight (28) shifts for each subsequent offence." 24 Mr Mason-Jones submitted that this by-law indicates how the Network regards the seriousness of this offence. 25 Mr Mason-Jones submitted on behalf of Mr Naziry that Mr Naziry has demonstrated that he is trustworthy over a period of 15 years. His business should be allowed to continue. The Tribunal has the power to impose conditions and rather than cancel the Accreditation conditions should be imposed that would allow improvement. There should be no cancellation. The Director General's Case 26 The Director General's case is essentially as set out in the reasons for decision referred to above. The Ministry's file relating to the Accreditation was put in evidence. The Director General relies on the documents contained within the file as evidence of Mr Naziry's history of warnings and suspensions. A notice dated 18 March 1999 addressed to Mr Naziry and headed "Warning" stated: "Section 16 (2) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 provides that a driver's/ rider's licence must be suspended if its holder incurs a total of 12 or more demerit points within any three year period. The demerit points you have incurred for the offence(s) endorsed on your driving record, over the three year period immediately preceding the most recently recorded offence, are shown below. You are at the stage when the recording of a further offence could result in the suspension of your licence." 27 A notice dated 5 August 2000 addressed to Mr Naziry and headed "Notice of Suspension of Drivers Licence" stated: " Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 Section 16 The demerit points you have incurred for the offences listed below have exceeded the prescribed limit and, as required under the above law, your Unrestricted Class C driver licence will be suspended on and from 09 SEP 2000 for a period of 3 months. You must not drive during the suspension period You may keep the licence in your possession but you cannot drive until on or after 10 DEC 2000. If your licence expires during the suspension period it must be renewed a a motor registry before you resume driving. Moreover, it cannot be renewed while the suspension period is still current." 28 A further notice dated for February 2003, addressed to Mr Naziry and headed "Warning" was in similar terms to the "Warning" notice dated 18 March 1999 referred to above. A notice dated seven August 2003, addressed to Mr Naziry and headed "Notice of Suspension of Driver's Licence" stated: " Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 Section 16 The demerit points you have incurred for the offences listed below have exceeded the prescribed limit and, as required under the above law, your Unrestricted Class C driver licence will be suspended on and from 11 SEP 2000 for a period of 3 months. You must not drive on a road or road-related area during the suspension period. You may keep the licence in your possession but you cannot drive until on or after 12 DEC 2000. If your licence expires during the suspension period it must be renewed by a motor registry before you resume driving. Moreover, it cannot be renewed while the suspension period is still current. As an alternative to the suspension period for exceeding the demerit points limit, you may elect to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. To make an election, you must attend a motor registry with your licence and this notice and complete a good behaviour election form before the suspension date indicated above. If you make the election the 12 month good behaviour period will comments on and from 11 SEP 2000. A good behaviour election cannot be made once your licence is suspended. You have the right to appeal against this decision. If you wish to do so, the appeal most be lodged at a Local Court in NSW within 28 days of receiving this notice Should you lodge en appeal, you may continue to drive pending the hearing of the appeal by the court as long as your licence remains current. If the appeal is dismissed and the RTA's decision to suspend your licence is confirmed by the court, the 3 months suspension period will comments from the date the appeal is heard." 29 Mr Naziry asserts that he did not receive this notice until after he attended the Bureau on 16 September 2003 and therefore was not aware that his licence had been suspended. 30 The Director General also relies on the Local Court record, which shows that on 15 October 2003 Mr Naziry was found guilty of driving while suspended. The Director General asserts that this finding relates to events following Mr Naziry's visit to the Taxis and Hire Car Bureau Office of the Ministry on 16 September 2003. There is disagreement between the parties in relation to what transpired during that visit. The Director General relies on two statements in relation to that issue. 31 Ms Patricia Smith, a Senior Customer Service Officer with the Ministry, provided a statement dated 18 September 2003 in which she states: "On Tuesday 16 September 2003 I was on duty at the Ministry's Office in Parramatta, when I attended the counter and spoke to a male person who identified himself as Mr Rhulla Naziry. Mr Naziry told me that he was making enquires into his application for a private hire vehicle driver's authority. I then advised Mr Naziry that his application for a private hire vehicle driver's authority was held in abeyance as his NSW RTA records revealed that his driver's license was suspended on 11 September 2003 to 11 December 2003 inclusive. At the time of my conversation with Mr Naziry, I noticed he was wearing a Silver Service taxi driver uniform. As the RTA records had shown his driver's licence was suspended, I asked him if he was driving a taxi. He replied "No". I also informed him that he had better not be driving a taxi at the moment, as he did not hold a current driver's licence or a taxi driver authority. He nodded. I was concerned that Mr Naziry was currently wearing a Silver Service 'Taxi uniform, I called Compliance Team Leader, Ross Maloney and I told him something. Ross Maloney then phoned Taxis Combined Services and was told something. Ross Maloney then attended the counter with me and spoke to Mr Naziry. He asked him if he was driving a taxi, he replied "No". He then informed Mr Naziry that his license was suspended for a period of three months from 11/9/03 to 11/12/03. Mr Naziry told Ross Maloney that he did not know that and that his lawyer had fixed it up. Ross Maloney then said, "So you were aware that the RTA was taking action against your driver's license". Mr Naziry replied "No". Ross Maloney told Mr Naziry that he had contacted TCS and had been told that he was pinned into the taxi and that he had been working that morning. Ross Maloney also informed him that TCS log records revealed that he had been working the vehicle on the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth of September. Mr Naziry continued to deny that he was driving a taxi and it was not until he was told by Ross Maloney that he could produce logged meter movements that Mr Naziry admitted to driving taxi T3264. Ross Maloney told Mr Naziry that he was not to drive a taxi and that as his NSW driver's license was suspended his authority to drive taxis was no longer valid. He was also told that his PIN number with TCS was to be suspended and that his application for a hire car authority and accreditation upgrade would not proceed further until after investigations into his driving without a NSW driver's license were complete. Ross Maloney then told Mr Naziry that he would be notified by the Ministry of any further action was to be taken and again told him not to drive a taxi. Mr Naziry then left the building." 32 Mr Ross Maloney, Team Leader, Compliance with the Ministry, also provided a statement dated 18 September 2003 in which he states: "On Tuesday 16 September 2003 I was on duty at the Ministry's Office in Parramatta, when I was called by Senior Customer Service Officer Patricia Smith who told me something. I then rang Taxis Combined Services and spoke to Valdis Sermukslis who told me something. As a result, I attended the counter in company of Patricia Smith and spoke to Mr Rhollua Naziry. At the time of the conversation Mr Naziry was wearing a Silver Service taxi driver uniform. I asked Mr Naziry if he was driving a taxi, he replied "No". I then informed him that RTA records revealed that his driver's license was suspended on 11 September 2003 for a period of three months. He told me that he did not know that and that his lawyer had fixed it up and told him he had only lost two points. I then said to him, "So you were aware that the RTA was taking action against your driver's license". He again replied "No". I then asked him if he was driving taxi T3264. He replied "No". I told him that I had contacted TCS and that I had been told that he was pinned into that taxi and that he had been working that morning. I also informed him that TCS log records revealed that he had been working the vehicle on the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth of September. Mr Naziry continued to deny that he was driving a taxi and it was not until I told him that I could produce his logged meter movements that he admitted to driving taxi 73264. I then informed Mr Naziry that he was not to drive a taxi and that as his NSW driver's licence was suspended his authority to drive taxis was no longer valid. He was also informed that his PIN number with TCS was to be suspended and that his application for a hire car authority and accreditation upgrade would not proceed further until after investigations into his driving without a NSW driver's license were complete. I then informed Mr Naziry that he would be notified by the Ministry of any further action to be taken and again told him not to drive a taxi. Mr Naziry then left the building." 33 Mr Naziry does not agree that the discussions with Mr Maloney and Ms Smith occurred as those officers have stated. However, it is not in dispute that the day after Mr Naziry's discussions with Mr Maloney and Ms Smith officers of the Ministry detected Mr Naziry driving a taxicab. Mr Naziry appeared in the Hornsby Local Court on 15 October 2003 at which time the Court found him guilty of the offence of "drive on road while licence suspended". The Court did not record a conviction, but instead Mr Naziry was discharged upon entering a two-year good behaviour bond. 34 By letter dated 23 October 2003, Jonathon Purchas the Network Manager of Silver Service Taxis Pty Ltd advised the Ministry that Mr Naziry's taxis were suspended from the Silver Service Network. 35 Mr Wozniak argued that the purpose of an accreditation is to attest that the accredited person is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects fit and proper to be responsible for the operation of a taxi-cab service. He referred to the statements provided by Mr Maloney and Ms Smith and asserted that even if Mr Naziry had not been aware that his licence had been suspended prior to 16 September 2003, there can be no doubt that he was aware from that date. Immediately after his discussions with Mr Maloney and Ms Smith Mr Naziry drove his taxi and accepted a fare. He submitted that by this action Mr Naziry demonstrated that he is not a fit and proper person to be responsible for the operation of a taxi-cab service. 36 Mr Naziry conceded that on the day following his discussions with Mr Maloney and Ms Smith he used a PIN belonging to another driver so that he could continue to drive. Mr Wozniak argued that by this action Mr Naziry has demonstrated that he is prepared to act dishonestly in relation to the regulated activity. He submitted that honesty is implicit in the concept of whether a person is a fit and proper person. Mr Wozniak argues that Mr Naziry dishonestly told Mr Maloney and Ms Smith that he was not driving on 16 September 2003; he dishonestly drove immediately after being informed that his licence had been suspended and on the following day; he dishonestly asserted that he was only driving on 17 September 2003 because he was looking for a driver for his taxi; he dishonestly used the PIN of another driver so that he could drive on 17 September 2003 and if the Ministry's officers had not detected Mr Naziry driving on 17 September 2003 he would have continued to drive. 37 Mr Wozniak argued that Mr Naziry has demonstrated that he is unable to ensure that he complies with his own obligations as a taxi-driver and therefore the Director-General could not attest that he could ensure that others would meet their obligations. The Director-General's concern is the protection of the public not the punitive consequences of a cancellation. 38 Mr Wozniak argues that the numerous cases to which Mr Mason-Jones referred relate to actions outside the regulated activity and can be distinguished. Mr Naziry's offences are directly related to his work as a taxi driver and as an accredited taxi-cab operator. He submitted that the Director-General is unable to attest that Mr Naziry is of good repute and in all other respects fit and proper to be responsible for the operation of a taxi-cab service and therefore the correct and preferable decision is to cancel the Accreditation. 39 Mr Wozniak further submitted that it is not appropriate to impose a condition on Mr Naziry's accreditation. He argued that the NSW Court of Appeal decision in Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 is authority for the principle that if it is necessary to impose a condition on the grant of an authority then the imposition of the conditions demonstrates that the person who is the subject of the conditions is not fit to hold the authority. In any event, if a condition were imposed, the only conceivable condition would be that Mr Naziry is required to obey the law. It would be nonsense to impose such a condition. The Tribunal should therefore affirm the Director-General's decision. Findings and reasons 40 I have consider all the evidence and submissions presented on behalf of each party. In my view it is unlikely that Mr Naziry would have presented himself to the Taxis and Hire Car Bureau Office of the Ministry on 16 September 2003 if he had known at that time that his licence had been suspended. It is even more unlikely that he would have done so wearing a Silver Service taxi driver uniform. I accept Mr Naziry's evidence that he did not become aware of the suspension until that time. 41 While it is understandable that Mr Naziry's work load and family circumstances made it difficult for him to check his mail, it was his responsibility to do so. It is no excuse to assert that he did not receive the warning notice because of the family arrangement. 42 I also agree that it is probable that had Mr Naziry received the warning notice he would have taken steps to ensure that his licence was not suspended. 43 It is common ground that on 16 September 2003 Mr Maloney told Mr Naziry that he should not drive while his licence was suspended. Had Mr Naziry accepted Mr Maloney's advice this matter would not have arisen. He could have taken action in relation to the suspension or allowed the period of the suspension to pass. Regrettably, Mr Naziry did not adopt that approach. He ignored the advice and immediately returned to driving his taxi. He then compounded the problem by dishonestly using another driver's PIN to allow him to drive the following day. I do not accept that he did this merely in an attempt to secure a driver for his taxi. If that were the case, he need not have accepted fares. 44 In my view, Mr Naziry deliberately used another driver's PIN so that he could continue to drive so that he could earn the income necessary to maintain his business. He did this knowing that his licence had been suspended. It is also probably that he would have continued to drive and accept fares if the Ministry's officers had not discovered him driving. These are seriousness offences. It is significant that these offences occurred while Mr Naziry was carrying on the activity regulated by the Act and for which the Accreditation was issued. 45 An accreditation is issued pursuant to section 31 of the Act. Pursuant to section 31(2) of the Act, Mr Naziry should only be accredited for the purpose of carrying on taxi-cab services if he is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects fit and proper to be responsible for the operation of a taxi-cab service. If Mr Naziry is of good repute then it must also be considered that "in all other respects", i.e. in all respects other than his reputation, he is a fit and proper person to be responsible for the operation of a taxi-cab service. The testimonials are relevant for this purpose. 46 Whether a person is of good repute is an issue related to but different from whether a person is fit and proper for a particular purpose. Being considered to be of good repute is a threshold issue within section 31(2) of the Act. If Mr Naziry is not of good repute there is no need to consider whether he is a fit and proper person to be responsible for the operation of a taxi-cab service. 47 Mr. Naziry does not fail to be of good repute simply because of the Court's findings that he has committed offences. An assessment of repute is a matter for the Tribunal, weighing all the evidence. All the circumstances of the case must be taken into account in assessing a person's suitability to retain an authority: Saadieh v Director-General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68. 48 Repute is what others think. A person's reputation, in fact and in law, is to be found in the estimate of his moral character entertained by some specific group of people, such as those who live in the neighbourhood of his residence, those who work with him or those with whom he associates in his occupation or profession: Re T and the Director of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392 per Waddell J at page 393. 49 Whether a person's history is known in the community will be a factor in assessing what weight to give to the evidence of repute. A positive estimation in spite of knowledge of a blemished history would ordinarily weigh in favour of the person. A witness's opinion of Mr. Naziry may be accepted as evidence of his repute, although the weight to be given to that evidence will depend on the circumstances in which the witness formed the opinion. 50 I accept the evidence provided by Mr Mason-Jones regarding the advice that he provided to the authors of the testimonials given on Mr Naziry's behalf. On the basis of those testimonials I am satisfied that Mr Naziry is considered to be of good repute. 51 The issue remaining in this case is therefore whether, in the light of his offences and the responsibilities and expectations of an accredited person, Mr Naziry is nevertheless in all other respects a fit and proper person to be responsible for the operation of a taxi-cab service. Chief Justice Mason in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at [63] said that: "The question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgment. In that process the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision-maker. So too is the weight, if any, to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration." 52 In Saadieh the Tribunal's Deputy President set out a number of factors, based on the terms of the legislation and the case law interpreting similar provisions, that need to be taken into account in determining a person's suitability and fitness to obtain a taxi authority. These factors were: - the nature, seriousness and frequency of any criminal offences for which the applicant has been arrested or convicted; · - the nature, seriousness and frequency of any complaints made against the applicant; - the applicant's driving record; - the applicant's reputation in the community; and - the likelihood that the applicant will re-offend, be the subject of further complaints or commit further traffic offences. 53 The Deputy President also noted in that case that in assessing the last factor, several considerations are relevant. These include: the length of time since the offence/s were committed or the complaint/s made; the circumstances in which those offences or complaints occurred or are alleged to have occurred; whether the applicant admits responsibility for the offences or complaints and shows genuine remorse; the efforts the applicant has made to rehabilitate himself or herself during that time; and any change in the applicant's circumstances such as increased support from friends, family or professional service providers. 54 In my view, these factors are equally applicable to the consideration of whether a person is fit and proper to be responsible for the operation of a taxi-cab service. 55 Various Tribunal decisions have applied the test in respect of a person being of fit and proper character to hold a driver's authority defined and applied by the President of the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the matter of Maythisathit v Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1996) ACT 165. In that particular case, the test was stated to be: "One must put oneself, so far as possible, in the position of a member of the public who might travel in a taxi driven by the applicant and ask whether that member of the public, knowing of the applicant's criminal record and what he has done in the past year to rehabilitate himself, would object to the applicant as the driver of the taxi". 56 In the present circumstances that test can appropriately be applied with the relevant member of the public travelling in the taxi service operated by Mr. Naziry. The relevant question is therefore whether the travelling public, knowing of Mr. Naziry's record, would object to Mr. Naziry as the operator of a taxi-cab service? 57 The nature and seriousness of Mr. Naziry's September 2003 offences are beyond question. I am satisfied that Mr. Naziry had also had his licence suspended prior to those offences and that he continued to drive while suspended. It does him no credit that he arranged his affairs in a manner that allowed this situation to arise. Nevertheless I accept that on those occasions he did not deliberately drive while suspended. I also accept that Mr. Naziry's September 2003 offences appear to be out of character. 58 Notwithstanding those views, I consider that the September 2003 offences are irreconcilable with the role of an operator of a taxi-cab service. A taxi operator must ensure that persons driving their taxi-cabs are authorised taxi drivers and hold a current driver licence. Operators are also required to monitor and ensure that drivers comply with the standards that govern their work in the industry. In my view Mr. Naziry's conduct has demonstrated little regard for the law or taxi operator accreditation standards. Mr. Naziry has also demonstrates a lack of responsibility and honesty by using a PIN that belongs to another driver to deceive the taxi network. The fact that he did not comply with the required standards and law himself leads me to the view that he lacks the ability to ensure other drivers comply with those standards. 59 I do not agree that this is a situation that can be addressed adequately by the imposition of a condition on the Accreditation. In my view, the seriousness of these offences makes it inescapable that the Accreditation should be withdrawn. 60 I note that Mr. Naziry's bond has not yet expired. It is also my view that Mr Naziry has not totally accepted responsibility for his actions on 17 September 2003. Applying the Saadieh test to Mr Naziry's situation, it is my view that it is too soon to yet be confident that Mr. Naziry is unlikely to re-offend or be the subject of further complaints. Having weighed the evidence, I am not satisfied that sufficient time has passed for the travelling public to be comfortable with Mr. Naziry as the operator of a taxi-cab service. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Director General's decision is the correct and preferable one. 61 It is apparent from the testimonials presented on his behalf that Mr. Naziry has catered for the needs of his passengers when he has worked as a taxi driver. He clearly has a temperament that is suited to that role. Nevertheless it is my view that he would benefit from updating and refresher training in relation to the obligations that the Act and related legislation imposes on a driver. I urge Mr. Naziry to embark on such training before he again seeks to obtain a taxi driver authority. ORDERS The decision of the Director-General, Ministry of Transport to cancel the Taxi Accreditation number 23727 held by Mr. Rohulla Naziry is affirmed.