Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Al-Najjar v Director General Transport NSW [2011] NSWADT 38 Hearing dates: 3 February 2011 Decision date: 01 March 2011 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: C Huntsman, Judicial Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: Fit and proper person, criminal convictions Legislation Cited: Passenger Transport Act 1990 Passenger Transport Regulation 2007 Cases Cited: Al-Najjar v Ministry of Transport [2009] NSWADT 173; Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68 Chowdhury v Department of Transport and Infrastructure [2010] NSWADT ; Lal v Director General, Department of Transport[2001] NSWADT 74, at 47. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Wail Al-Najjar (Applicant) Department of Transport & Infrastructure (Respondent) Representation: Wail Al-Najjar (Applicant in person) Smythe Wozniak (Respondent) File Number(s): 103188 REASONS FOR DECISION 1Wail Al-Najjar (the Applicant) has applied to the Tribunal for a review of a decision of the Director General Transport NSW (the Respondent) made under the Passenger Transport Act 1990, to refuse the Applicant's application for authorisation to drive a taxi-cab. The role of the Tribunal is to determine whether the decision of the Respondent is the correct and preferable decision having regard to the relevant facts and the applicable law: section 63 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. Background 2The Applicant was granted a taxi driver authority in January 2006. On 8 May 2009, a delegate of the Director General suspended the Applicant's taxi driver authority. A stated reason for the suspension was the Applicant being charged with criminal offences - at the time of the decision to suspend his licence the Applicant had been charged, on 13 February 2009, with an alleged assault at Sydney airport on a security officer, and the Applicant had also been charged with two fraud related offences allegedly committed whilst performing his duties as a taxi driver. On 22 May 2009 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision to suspend his taxi driver authority. On 6 July 2009 the Tribunal, constituted by Deputy President Handley, affirmed the decision to suspend the Applicant's taxi driver authority (refer Al-Najjar v Ministry of Transport [2009] NSWADT 173). 3After his authorisation was suspended it subsequently expired in January 2010. The Applicant applied for authorisation to drive taxi-cabs on 2 June 2010. By letter dated 30 June 2010 a delegate of the Director-General, Transport NSW (the Respondent) determined to refuse the Applicant's application for authorisation to drive taxi - cabs. The Statement of Reasons for that decision states: "On 14 September 2009 you were convicted at Waverley Local Court of Common Assault T2". This Incident Involved in an altercation with a security officer at Sydney Airport and occurred whilst you were performing your duty as a taxi driver. On 25 May 2010 you were convicted at Sydney District Court of 'Make/possess implements for making false instruments - T1' and were sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, which was suspended on entering a Section 12 bond for 12 months commencing 25 May 2010. The offences also occurred whilst you were performing your duties as a taxi driver and was committed upon a passenger travelling in your taxi. During your relatively short tenure as a taxi driver you were the subject of 17 complaints including demanding more/other than prescribed fare, driving in an unsafe manner, lack of street knowledge and major destinations, rudeness to customers, driving in an unsafe manner, refusal of a fare/hire when "for hire" and failure to provide reasonable assistance to a customer. As a result of all the above, your authority to drive taxis was suspended on 7 July 2009 and subsequently expired on 13 January 2010. It is noted that you failed to declare the above-mentioned convictions on your application form". 4The Applicant applied for internal review of this decision on 30 June 2010. By letter dated 30 July 2010 a decision was made to affirm the original decision and a Statement of Reasons was issued to the Applicant. The Statement of Reasons noted, amongst other matters, that the decision maker was not satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to be authorised to drive a taxi-cab. Preliminary issue raised by the Respondent 5Mr Wozniak, for the Respondent, referred to the Applicant's report from the psychologist, and to the Respondent's report from Dr Garvan. It was submitted that these documents indicated there may be an issue about the Applicant's medical fitness to drive. The Respondent referred to clause 29 of the Regulation and submitted that if the Applicant was found medically unfit then the Applicant would not be authorised to drive a taxi-cab. It was submitted that this issue was in the nature of a condition precedent, and the Tribunal should not hear the current application for review, until the Respondent had an opportunity to assess the issue of medical fitness. The Tribunal adjourned briefly to consider the submission. Upon resuming the hearing the Tribunal indicated its determination that the Tribunal would proceed to hear the current application. The Tribunal gave oral reasons for this determination. The Tribunal observed that the Respondent's concern about the issue of medical fitness could be addressed in any orders made by the Tribunal at the close of the current proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant's authority has been suspended for reasons relating to the current matter, namely the then charges which are now convictions, and that he is anxious to have these issues determined. The Tribunal notes that if the current proceedings were adjourned to determine the issue of medical fitness, and the Applicant was found medically fit, then it would be likely that the Respondent would maintain its view that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to be authorised to drive a taxi-cab given the convictions for criminal offences. It is in the interests of the Applicant to have this decision considered by the Tribunal at this time. The Tribunal determined to hear the application for review. The Evidence The Applicant's case 6The Applicant submitted the following material in support of his application for review: the application for review of a reviewable decision (application form) with attachments; a document entitled "response by [the Applicant] to Mr Blair's response"; statement of the Applicant (exhibit A5); a number of references (bundled together as exhibit A3) - all the references are addressed "to whom it may concern" with the exception of the reference from Dr Alsayed which is addressed "Greetings"; and a report from a psychologist dated 14 January 2011. The Applicant also showed the Tribunal a letter from the Department of Corrective Services dated 13 July 2010, addressed to the Applicant, advising that the Applicant no longer needed to report to the Probation and Parole Service but that he still needed to comply with the conditions of his probation until 24 May 2011. 7The Applicant's case relies on these documents and also his oral evidence to the Tribunal during the hearing. The Applicant's case, in summary, is based on the character references submitted to show his good character; and the statements about his court proceedings whereby he submits that he has been wrongly convicted of the offences (and alleges amongst other matters that he was inadequately represented by his lawyer in those proceedings). During the hearing a document, which is contained also on the Respondent's file, was referred to by the Applicant, this document is also annexed to the Applicant's application for review, this is a letter by a barrister in support of the Applicant's review application. The letter raises issues about the adequacy of the Applicant's legal representation in the court proceedings in relation to the charges and subsequent convictions. The barrister asks that the Applicant's application for review be upheld, if nothing more than on humanitarian grounds. The barrister notes there are compassionate grounds to be taken into consideration relating to medical conditions relating to the Applicant's wife and baby. Further documents relating to these medical conditions are contained on the Respondent's file. 8The Tribunal raised with the Applicant early in the hearing that, whilst the Tribunal would consider all of the Applicant's oral evidence and all the written material submitted, the Tribunal could not go behind the convictions made by the Local Court and/or confirmed on appeal to the District Court. Early in the proceedings it was made clear by the Applicant that although he had presented a medical report he considers he is medically fit to be authorised to drive a taxi-cab. This issue was made the subject of a preliminary application by the Respondent as discussed further above. The Applicant spent the major part of the hearing giving evidence as to why the convictions, namely the assault conviction recorded by the Local Court, and the fraud convictions recorded by the Local Court and on appeal to the District Court, were not correct. He maintained that he was wrongly convicted of these offences. In his evidence he gave detail about why he should be seen as having been wrongly convicted, including allegations that he was not adequately legally represented. The Applicant also maintained that it was illogical that he would have committed these offences and gave some evidence about this. The Applicant also referred to the stress upon him of being out of work, the financial stress that this represents to him and his family, and the impact on his wife of this situation. He stated that his wife is pregnant now with their second child. 9The Applicant in essence submits to the Tribunal, that the Tribunal should not consider the convictions for the criminal offences in assessing whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be authorised to drive taxi-cabs, given that the Applicant disputes the validity of the convictions. The Applicant relies on the references submitted to demonstrate his good character. Further, the Applicant submits that he experiences hardship, both emotional and financial, by being refused authority to drive taxi-cabs. He also refers to the hardship to his family. The Respondent's case 10The Respondent submitted documents obtained under summons from the Local Court relating to the conviction of the Applicant for the charge of common assault on 14 September 2009; documents obtained under summons from the Sydney District Court relating to the Applicant's conviction on two charges of make/possess implements for making false instruments on 25 May 2010; a document entitled Taxi Driver Authorisation Standards; a report by Dr Garvan of 27 January 2011. The Respondent also relied on their file in relation to the Applicant. The main documents relied upon in the file, in summary, were: the Applicant's application for a taxi driver license of 2006 and the Applicant's taxi driver declaration that the Applicant understands the applicable standards; documents on the file relating to the complaints received about the Applicant, being 17 complaints, 10 of which were found to be justified. In particular the Respondent refers to complaints involving fraudulent use of credit cards or CabCharge alleging overcharging of the passenger (referring to page 83 of the file). The Respondent also noted a record of interview with the Applicant by the Department where it was noted that the department had received 10 complaints in a two-year period and the Applicant responded that he would try to do better. The Respondent noted that the Applicant was then required to attend a re-training course and did complete the course. The Respondent notes that it was soon after completion of the course that the criminal charges arose, in respect of which the Applicant has now been convicted. 11The Respondent noted that the charge of the assault at the airport was not disclosed to the Respondent by the Applicant and occurred in the course of the regulated activity as a taxi cab driver. Page 96 of the Respondent's file contains a letter from the police advising that the Applicant had been charged with fraud offences and the Respondent submitted that this occurred within the trust relationship between driver and passenger. The Respondent also noted the documents on file relating to a complaint by a passenger about conduct by the Applicant which was similar to that for which the Applicant was ultimately convicted (page 381 of the file contains a letter on behalf of the passenger attaching a credit card statement and receipts suggesting that the charge of $83.40 was altered by the driver of the taxi-cab to $183.40). The Respondent referred to the decision of this Tribunal in 2009 affirming a previous decision of the Respondent to suspend the Applicant's authority to drive a taxi cab. Mr Wozniak, for the Respondent, submitted that nothing had changed since that decision except that the Applicant had now been convicted of the offences, and at the time of the decision to suspend his licence he had only been charged with those offences. 12The Respondent submits that the offences for which the Applicant is now convicted arose in the course of the regulated activity. The Respondent further noted that the relationship between a passenger and taxi-cab driver is one which relies on trust, and given the convictions for fraud against passengers, the public would be outraged if someone convicted of such offences were to be permitted to continue to drive a taxi cab. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's submissions in relation to financial and personal hardship were not matters which could be taken into account by the Tribunal in deciding this review application, and referred the Tribunal to the decision of Lal v Director General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74. The Law 13The Passenger Transport Act 1990, and the Passenger Transport Regulation provide: Section 33, Passenger Transport Act 1990 33 Authorities (1)The Director-General may, by the issue of authorities under this Division, authorise persons to drive taxi-cabs, subject to and in accordance with this Division. A person authorised under this Division is referred to in this Part as an "authorised taxi-cab driver". (2) A person who drives a taxi-cab is guilty of an offence unless the person is an authorised taxi-cab driver. Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units. (3) The purpose of an authority under this Division is to attest: (a) that the authorised person is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a taxi-cab, and (b) that the authorised person is considered to have sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive a taxi-cab: (i) in accordance with the conditions under which the taxi-cab service concerned is operated, and (ii) in accordance with law and custom. 33B Grant or refusal of application (1) Having regard to the purpose of authorisation under this Division, the Director-General may grant an application and authorise the Applicant to drive a taxi-cab, or may refuse the application. (2) Before an application is granted, the Applicant must meet any criteria set forth in the regulations and must satisfy the Director-General as to any matter the Director-General considers relevant. (3) An Applicant is required to pay any fee fixed by the regulations for the authority when first issued. (4) An authority is to be given in writing by the Director-General to the authorised person. (5) The authority may specify the category or grade of the authority, and (without limitation) may specify the kind or kinds of vehicles for which the authority is granted. Passenger Transport Regulation2007 , clause 29 - Criteria for authorisation to drive public passenger vehicles (1) For the purposes of sections 12 (2), 33B (2) and 40B (2) of the Act, the criteria that an Applicant for an authorisation to drive a public passenger vehicle must meet before the application is granted are the criteria set out in subclauses (2)-(4). (2) The Applicant: (a) must be at least 20 years of age, and (b) must hold a driver licence that is not a learner licence, probationary licence, provisional licence, restricted licence, driver licence receipt or conditional licence (other than a conditional licence the sole condition of which is that the holder must wear corrective lenses at all times while driving), and (c) must have held an Australian driver licence for a total of at least 12 months in the 2 years immediately preceding the date of the application, and (d) must have passed an examination or assessment, at a level determined by the Director-General, in medical fitness, and (e) must satisfy the Director-General that he or she: (i) may lawfully work in Australia, and (ii) is of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of the vehicle concerned, and (iii) has sufficient responsibility to drive the vehicle concerned in accordance with law and custom. (3) In the case of an application for authorisation to drive buses, the Applicant must also have successfully completed a bus driver training course approved by the Director-General and conducted by a registered training organisation (or must have such competence as a driver of buses as the Director-General considers appropriate). (4) In the case of an application for authorisation to drive taxi-cabs, the Applicant must also: (a) have successfully completed a taxi-cab driver training course approved by the Director-General and conducted by a registered training organisation (or must have such competence as a driver of a taxi-cab as the Director-General considers appropriate), and (b) have passed an examination or assessment, at a level determined by the Director-General, in the following: (i) geographical knowledge of areas in which taxi-cabs ply for hire, (ii) such part or parts of the taxi-cab driver training course referred to in paragraph (a) as may be required by the Director-General (or must have such competence as a driver of a taxi-cab as the Director-General considers appropriate), (iii) knowledge of this Regulation in so far as it relates to taxi-cabs and the driving of taxi-cabs, and (c) have passed an examination or assessment, at a level determined by the Director-General, in both written and oral communication in the English language (or must have such competence in that language as the Director-General considers equivalent to that level). (5) In this clause:"Australian driver licence" means: (a) a driver licence, or (b) a licence issued under a law in force in a State or internal Territory authorising the holder to drive a motor vehicle on a road or road related area, being a licence that is not a learner licence, probationary licence, provisional licence, restricted licence, driver licence receipt or conditional licence (other than a conditional licence the sole condition of which is that the holder must wear corrective lenses at all times while driving). 14The Tribunal has also had regard to the prior decisions of the Tribunal discussing the legislative requirements. A useful review of the authorities was provided in the case of Chowdhury v Department of Transport and Infrastructure [2010] NSWADT 199: 7........The purposes of a taxi drivers authority are set out is s 33(3): "The purpose of an authority under this Division is to attest: (a) that the authorised person is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a taxi-cab, and (b) that the authorised person is considered to have sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive a taxi-cab: (i) in accordance with the conditions under which the taxi-cab service concerned is operated, and (ii) in accordance with law and custom." 8.The meaning of "fit and proper" is dependent on the nature and purpose of the activities which the person will undertake. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321,Chief Justice Mason explained that, at 380: '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.' 9. The Tribunal and the Appeal Panel have frequently cited with approval the test posed by the equivalent ACT Tribunal dealing with an equivalent legislative scheme in Maythisathit and Registrar of Motor Vehicles [1996] ACT 165 per Curtis P: '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 ... to rehabilitate himself, would object to the Applicant as the driver of the taxi.' ....... 12..In contrast to character, reputation as Waddell J explained in Re T and Anor and the Director of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392 at 389: "...is to be found in the estimate of his moral character entertained by some specific group of people, such as by 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. The importance of a person's reputation is that it is an estimate of his character, or some aspect of his character, upon which the persons in such a group are generally, although not necessarily unanimously, agreed. It is this essential nature of reputation which makes it a reliable guide to a person's character. See, generally, Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd ed., vol 5, p 486 et seq, pars 1615, 1616; p 479 et seq, par 1610. As is pointed out by Wigmore, a person might not have a general reputation in the neighbourhood where he lives, but may have established a reputation in another group of persons: p 472 etseq, par 1606. It is, I suppose, possible that a person might not have any reputation at all, simply because he does not participate in the activities of any group of people who have any necessity to form an estimate of his character. 13. In Director General, Department of Transport v Z (No.2) (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 37 the Appeal Panel explained: 'Good repute' refers to the way reasonably-minded people assess an individual's current reputation, with reasonably precise knowledge of those matters that put the person's reputation in doubt. The fact that the person produces evidence from witnesses who vouch in general terms for the person's reputation can not be conclusive. Equally, care must be taken, as we see it, not to use the 'good repute' requirement as a way of bringing into consideration stereotypes or assumptions which offend, for example, against human rights or anti-discrimination standards. 14.In Re T Waddell J (at 399) discussed how reputation is to be proved by evidence from those who know the person well, and who know how the person is generally regarded in the community in which he lives. At 401, his Honour said that: ...evidence of particular acts of conduct on the part of the person whose reputation is in issue is not admissible to prove the nature of that reputation." 15In the case of Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68 the Tribunal cited Waddell J in Re T and the Director of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392 at 393: 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. . . Evidence of conviction for a criminal offence is, however, admissible as evidence, indeed, most cogent evidence of bad reputation. 16Further guidance was offered by the Tribunal in the case Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68 as to assessing a person's fitness to be authorised to drive a taxi-cab. The Tribunal then observed: 17 Taking into account the terms of the legislation and the case law interpreting similar provisions, there are a number of factors that need to be taken into account in determining a person's suitability and fitness to obtain a taxi authority. These factors include: 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; theApplicant's driving record; theApplicant'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. 18. 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. Discussion of evidence and findings 17Applying the terms of the legislation, and principles enunciated in the case law set out above, to the facts of the present matter, the Tribunal finds as follows. The Applicant has been convicted of criminal offences relatively recently - he was convicted in September 2009 of an assault on a security guard at Sydney airport whilst performing his duties as a taxi driver, and he was convicted in May 2010 of fraud offences committed on passenger whilst driving a taxi-cab. He is currently subject to a sentence arising from the fraud convictions - he is on a suspended sentence, section 12 bond, until 25 May 2011. As such, this is not a matter where a significant period of time has elapsed since the commission of/conviction for criminal offences, nor is it a matter where an Applicant can demonstrate a period of successful rehabilitation, given the recent convictions. This is also not a matter where the Applicant admits responsibility for the offences or shows remorse, as the Applicant disputes the convictions. This Tribunal may not go behind the findings of the Local Court and the District Court in relation to those criminal convictions, the Tribunal must accept that the Applicant has been convicted of those offences. Given the relatively short period of time since the convictions, and the consequent absence of any sustained period of rehabilitation, the Tribunal has no evidence on which to base a finding that the applicant would be unlikely to reoffend. 18The Tribunal should also consider the nature, seriousness and frequency of complaints made against the Applicant. As was noted by Deputy President Handley when affirming the decision to suspend the Applicant's authority in July 2009(Al-Najjar v Ministry of Transport [2009] NSWADT 173): "[The Applicant] has been driving a taxi-cab since being granted an authority in January 2006. During that period, 17 complaints have been made against him, of which 10 have been found to be justified....[The Applicant's] evidence is that he never had the opportunity to respond to 5 of those complaints. I've also noted he denies all the allegations of misconduct. However, I heard oral evidence from three complainants about alleged fraudulent acts by [the Applicant] involving the use of their credit cards. Another complaint arose from an incident involving an alleged fraudulent charge to the credit card of the Chairman of the Rice Marketing Board, which appears never to have been satisfactorily resolved........." 19Whilst in the present matter no evidence was presented from particular complainants, the Tribunal was invited by the Respondent to have regard to the findings of the Tribunal in July 2009, and it was also submitted that in a relatively brief period of being authorised to drive a taxi-cab, the Applicant had several complaints lodged against him, 10 of which had been found to be justified, and some of which alleged fraudulent acts involving use of passenger credit cards, complaints which alleged conduct similar to that for which the Applicant has now been convicted. The Tribunal considers that the evidence indicates frequent complaints, a number of which are serious in nature, particularly those alleging fraud upon passengers. In the evidence in the present matter the Applicant continues to dispute the complaints. However, the Tribunal has had regard to the frequency and seriousness of the complaints, and the nature of those complaints. The Tribunal has also had regard to the fact that the complaints were made during a relatively short period of authorisation to drive a taxi-cab, from 2006 to 2009. In considering the present matter the Tribunal has had regard to the history of complaints made. The Tribunal does agree with the observation of Deputy President Handley that it does appear that the complaint relating to the alleged fraudulent charge to the credit card of the chairman of the Rice Marketing Board does not appear to have been satisfactorily resolved on the documentation in the Respondent's file relating to the Applicant. 20The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's evidence in the form of the character references submitted. It is noted that none of those references appear to have been prepared for the purpose of the current proceedings, they are not addressed to the Tribunal, nor do they refer to the criminal convictions. As such they attract less weight in the sense that they cannot outweigh the weight which the Tribunal must give to the recent criminal convictions. 21The applicant referred the Tribunal to the financial and emotional hardship upon the Applicant, the effect upon his wife, the need to support his family. Whilst I can acknowledge the difficulties of this situation as a result of the refusal of his authority to drive a taxi-cab, the Applicant's financial circumstances/hardship are not a relevant consideration in deciding whether the Respondent made the correct and preferable decision: Lal v Director General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74, at 47. 22The Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold an authority to drive a taxi-cab. The Tribunal has carefully considered all of the evidence presented, the legislative requirements, and guidance provided in case law discussed above. The Tribunal notes the concluding remarks of Deputy President Handley in July 2009: "In my view, the evidence in Mr Al-Najjar's case is sufficient to raise serious concerns about whether he is a fit and proper person to hold authority to drive a taxi cab. It may be that the outcome of the charges laid against Mr Al-Najjar would lead to a conclusion that those concerns are not justified, in which case the suspension of his authority can be lifted. However I am satisfied on the evidence currently before me that the correct and preferable decision is that Mr Al-Najjar's authority should be suspended pending the resolution of the criminal charges laid against him." 23This Tribunal notes that the criminal charges have now been concluded and have resulted in criminal convictions. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has been convicted of an assault charge, and a fraud charge, both occurring during performance of his duties as a taxi driver. In particular the fraud charges were committed against passengers whilst driving a taxi-cab, and as such go to the issue of trust which is an essential ingredient of the relationship between taxi driver and passenger. The Tribunal considers that any member of the public would be most discomfited if a person convicted of such a fraud committed on a passenger whilst driving a taxi-cab, was permitted to continue to be authorised to drive a taxi-cab. For the reasons discussed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold an authority to drive a taxi-cab. The Tribunal is satisfied that the correct and preferable decision on the evidence is that the Applicant's application for authorisation to drive a taxi-cab be refused. Decision 24The decision under review is affirmed. I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. ********** 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: 08 March 2011