CITATION: Worsley v Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADT 83 DIVISION: General APPLICANT: Stephen Worsley RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Police FILE NUMBER: 993058 HEARING DATES: 06/08/1999 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 06/08/1999 DATE OF DECISION: 8 June 1999 K P O'Connor DCJ - President BEFORE: PRIMARY LEGISLATION: Security Industry Act 1997 APPLICATION: Review of decision to refuse to renew security industry licence - MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter Applicant: In person REPRESENTATION: Respondent: G Doherty, solicitor, Commissioner of Police ORDERS: 1. Appeal dismissed. Delivered Ex Tempore 1 The application before me is an application to set aside the decision of the Police Commissioner to refuse to renew the Security Industry licence of the applicant, Mr Worsley. The refusal has been made pursuant to s 16(1)(c) of the Security Industry Act 1997 (the Act) which states that the Commissioner must refuse to grant an application for a licence if the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant has within the period of 10 years before the application for the licence was made, been removed or dismissed from the Police Service of New South Wales, or from the police force of any other jurisdiction, whether in Australia or overseas. 2 The applicant has referred at some length to the circumstances that gave rise to his dismissal from the police force on 25 November 1991. The fact that he was dismissed is not in dispute. The material filed by the New South Wales Police Service includes details of the circumstances of the dismissal and an appeal which was unsuccessful to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal was at pains in its decision to restrict its consideration of matters that might be adverse to the applicant, in particular to the adverse findings in relation to the charges of misconduct and disobedience as they related to his failure to account properly for the filling of the tank of his car with petrol from the bowser at the police station. It noted in its decision that it had proceeded on the basis that his previous career record was an unblemished one, save as to that matter. I make these observations simply to assist the applicant in appreciating the relatively restricted way in which the Tribunal ultimately proceeded even though it did have regard in the course of its reasoning to various other matters relating to his history in the police force. The Tribunal made it clear that it did not ultimately take those matters into account in formulating its views as to whether or not the decision to dismiss should be confirmed. 3 Nevertheless having regard to the restricted approach that it took, it was satisfied that the decision to dismiss was the correct one in the circumstances and disallowed the appeal. 4 As I have indicated previously in the decision in Bourke v Commissioner of Police [1998] NSWADT 1 (Gen. Div.), I do not consider that the Tribunal is at liberty ordinarily to go behind the objective facts which, if established, impose a duty on the Commissioner to refuse an application for a licence. The Act does not give the Commissioner any discretion in the matter. In this instance the objective fact on which section 16(1)(c) of the Act depends i.e. dismissal is not in dispute. Therefore in those circumstances I have no alternative but to dismiss the applicant's appeal and to confirm the decision of the Commissioner. 5 I might note in conclusion that I expressed the view in Bourke's case that certainly as this scheme operates vis-à-vis minor convictions incurred by ordinary civilians, the scheme is a strict one, and it may be that it will be reviewed in due course by the Parliament and ameliorated in some way. But the considerations that apply to the application of the scheme to ex-police officers are obviously more complex. I do not make any comment in regard to that area. 6 The appeal is dismissed. 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.