Singh -v- Commisioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 117

CITATION: Singh -v- Commisioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 117 DIVISION: General Division APPLICANT PARTIES: Harpartap Singh RESPONDENT Commisioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service FILE NUMBER: 013255 HEARING DATES: 03/12/2001 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 03/05/2001 DATE OF DECISION: 07/08/2002

BEFORE: Lees M - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Security Industry Act - security industry licence - revocation or suspension of licence - Security industry licence - revocation or suspension of licence MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900 Security Industry Act 1997 Security Industry Regulation 1998 CASES CITED: APPLICANT REPRESENTATION: In person RESPONDENT D Paterson, solicitor ORDERS: The Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr Singh's licence is affirmed.

Background 1 This is an application by Mr Singh for review by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal ('the Tribunal') of a decision made on behalf of the New South Wales Commissioner of Police ('the Commissioner') to revoke his security industry licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 ('the Act'). 2 Mr Singh was served with a 'Notification of Revocation of Licence' dated 10.09.2001 on that day. The decision relied on sections 16 and 26 of the Act read with Clause 11 of the Security Industry Regulation 1998 ('the Regulation'). Mr Singh sought internal review by the Commissioner of this decision. 3 By letter dated 04.10.2001 Mr Singh was advised that the internal review decision affirmed the original decision to revoke the licence. 4 The Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider Mr Singh's application for external review is found under s. 29 of the Act together with s. 38 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1998 (the Tribunal Act). 5 On 1 November 2001 the President of the Tribunal refused to make an order pursuant to s 60(2) of the Tribunal Act to stay the Commissioner's revocation decision. Applicable Legislation 6 Section 16 of the Act concerns restrictions on granting licences in circumstances involving certain criminal and other related history. Section 16(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide The Commissioner must refuse to grant an application for a licence if the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant: (a) has, within the period of 10 years before the application for the licence was made, been convicted in New South Wales or elsewhere of an offence prescribed by the regulations, whether or not the offence is an offence under New South Wales law, … (b) has, within the period of 5 years before the application for the licence was made, been found guilty (but with no conviction being recorded) by a court in New South Wales or elsewhere of an offence prescribed by the regulations, whether or not the offence is an offence under New South Wales law, ……. 7 Section 26 of the Act as relevant reads: (1) A licence may be revoked: (a) for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of that class….. (c) if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, or (d) for any other reason prescribed by the regulations. 8 Clause 11(d) of the Regulation reads: 11. For the purposes of section 16 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, the following offences are prescribed offences regardless of whether they are committed in New South Wales: (a) - (c) … (d) An offence under the law of any Australian or overseas jurisdiction involving fraud, dishonesty or stealing, being an offence in respect of which the maximum penalty is (had the offence been committed under the law of an Australian jurisdiction) imprisonment for 3 months or more. …… 9 Clause 18 of the Regulation provides: In accordance with section 26 (1) (d) of the Act, a licence may be revoked if the Commissioner considers that it is not in the public interest for the person to whom it is granted to continue to hold it. Evidence and Submissions 10 In addition to his completed application form seeking review by the Tribunal, Mr Singh provided the Tribunal with a copies of training certificates he had obtained: Certificate II in Security Guarding (2000) and a certificate of completion of a Senior First Aid Course (2000). 11 Mr Singh gave oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing assisted occasionally by an interpreter. He was not legally represented. 12 Mr Singh's application for review states that he sought review because he 'was not satisfied with the decision' and that he had promised that the offence was his 'first and last mistake' and because he needed the licence as he had no 'other means' of earning money for himself and to help his parents. 13 After the hearing Mr Singh wrote to the Tribunal on 17.01.2002 making further general submissions and including an attachment concerning a pharmaceutical prescription. 14 Prior to the hearing the Tribunal was provided with a number of documents on behalf of the Commissioner. These included copies of: · a NSW Police Service 'Criminal History – Bail Report' pertaining to Mr Singh · a NSW Police Service 'Facts Sheet' relating to an offence committed by Mr Singh · the Notification of Revocation of Licence of 10.09.2001 · Mr Singh's request for internal review of the revocation decision received by the Police Service on 17.09.2001 · the internal review decision and statement of reasons dated 04.10.2001 · a letter from the Police Service Security Industry Registry dated 17.10.2001 to Mr Singh regarding his request of 10.10.2001 for a duplicate copy of his security licence. 15 After the hearing had concluded brief written submissions were provided on behalf of the Commissioner dated 05.03.2002 to the Tribunal in reply to Mr Singh's letter/submissions of 17.01.2002. 16 The Police Facts Sheet states that on 13.07.2001 Mr Singh was observed by the Loss Prevention Officer at Kmart Blacktown taking two pairs of trousers into the store's fitting rooms. Another young man who had one pair of trousers with him accompanied Mr Singh. Prior to this, the Loss Prevention Officer (LPO) had observed the young man with Mr Singh unsuccessfully try and remove a security tag from a pair of trousers. The LPO observed the two young men in the fitting room and saw them each put on a pair of new trousers beneath their own pants. Mr Singh emerged from the fitting room carrying only one pair of trousers. He subsequently joined up with the other young man and together they proceeded to leave the store through an open register making no attempt to pay for the trousers they were wearing. On being approached and questioned by the LPO the young men both denied they had left the store without paying for anything. After returning to the store and being asked to produce any unpaid-for items they had the young men removed their own trousers and placed the store's trousers on the bench. The police were called and spoke with the young men. They admitted they had taken the pants and made no offer to pay for them. They were placed under arrest and taken to Blacktown Police Station. Mr Singh's companion made full admissions and due to such and his history qualified for an official caution. Mr Singh was charged and appeared in Blacktown Local Court on 10.08.2001 on a shoplifting charge, namely, s. 117 of the Crimes Act 1900. He was fined $250 and ordered to pay Court costs of $58.00. 17 In evidence and under examination, Mr Singh stated he had seen the Police Facts Sheet and that he agreed with the facts as stated. 18 In relation to the offence Mr Singh stated that he 'didn't go to [Kmart] to steal', that he 'didn't do it knowingly': 'there was someone with me and he did it and I just did the same thing..'. That other person was a younger friend aged sixteen. Mr Singh was aged eighteen at this time. 19 Mr Singh said he was 'not a professional', he 'just did it with my friend', and he wanted to 'admit my mistake so therefore I told everything to the Police'. 20 In relation to his security licence Mr Singh stated 'If I was clever enough I would not have mentioned I had a security licence.' 21 Mr Singh obtained his security industry licence Class 1ABC (for the first time) on 19 March 2001. 22 Prior to the offence Mr Singh had been working in the security industry. He had worked with two security companies, 'Cheeta' and 'All-Time'. This had included work in shopping centres/malls, at an ANZ bank and at an NRMA. 23 Mr Singh agreed his work at the shopping centres was to 'walk around, inside and out', 'to stop people stealing' and 'doing bad things'. 24 He gave evidence that at the time of the offence he had been undertaking a twelve month long part-time course in computer studies at Mount Druitt TAFE. He had completed the first semester but had not attended since the Court case, as he did not have the money to pay for it. Mr Singh described his computer studies as being 'a hardware course' that will give him 'skills when seeking employment at some point'. He still hopes to finish that course. 25 Mr Singh apologised for his actions, stating he would 'never do this again'; he asked to be excused and forgiven and that his licence not be revoked as he did not have any other job. 26 His submissions seemed to be to the effect that he wanted his licence returned so that he could work for a period of time to get himself organised in some other industry such as 'cab driving'. 27 Mr Singh submitted that the revocation of his licence would mean he and all his family would lose their only source of income if his licence remained revoked. 28 There was also evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Singh wrote to the Security Registry on 10.10.2001 requesting that he be issued with a 'replacement' security industry licence claiming that his had been lost on 9.10.2001 in Blacktown and that he had reported the loss to the Police. His letter referred to 'LOST LICENCE (SECURITY) / Offence No. E 14024716'. Mr Singh's evidence was that his licence had been in his purse which was lost in Blacktown on 9.10.2001. 29 The Notification of Revocation of Licence that was served on Mr Singh on 10.09.2001 stated that he was 'no longer authorised to engage in any security activity in respect of the class of licence revoked. Your licence must be forwarded by mail to: ….' Section 31 of the Act is then quoted in full in the letter as follows: If a licence is suspended or revoked, the person to whom it was granted must immediately surrender the licence in accordance with the regulations. It then states that 'Failure to do so constitutes an offence, a maximum penalty for which is 20 penalty units ($2200).'