Bourke & Ors -V- The New South Wales Commissioner of Police [1998] ADT

General Division

CITATION: Bourke & Ors -V- The New South Wales Commissioner of Police [1998] ADT

JOEL LINDSAY BOURKE RONALD HARPER GILBERT NEIL OLIVER COMPLAINANT: JULES MARTIN HERRON DARRYL GADDES JAMIE DANIEL EVANS JOSHUA ROY CAVANAGH WARREN WILLIAM COBLE

RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

TRIBUNAL: Judge O'Connor ( Senior Judicial Member )

GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT: Appeal - Refusal of Security Industry Licence

DATES OF HEARING: 12/17/1998 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/17/1998

Complainant: Appellants appeared in person LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: MR G DOHERTY

HIS HONOUR: These are my reasons for decision in respect of a group of cases that involve appeals to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal under the provisions of the Security Industry Act. For the sake of clarity I will list the matters that will be affected by my ruling. The appeals include Bourke, Harper, Oliver, Herron, Gaddes, Evans, Cavanagh and Coble. This ruling goes to the question of law which is common to all of those matters. That question relates to the extent to which the Administrative Decisions Tribunal can exercise any discretion independent or additional to the powers that are able to be exercised by the Commissioner of Police under the scheme in respect of these appellants.

Each of the appellants, as I understand their circumstances, has been subject to what is known as a section 16 refusal of a security industry licence. Section 16 of the Security Industry Act 1997, which came into effect on 1 July 1998, states that the Commissioner must refuse to grant an application for a licence if the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant is affected by certain characteristics. Those characteristics are that the applicant: