Inaizi v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 45

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Inaizi v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 45 Hearing dates: 23 October 2012 and 17 December 2012 Decision date: 27 February 2013 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: C Huntsman, Judicial member Decision: The decision is affirmed Catchwords: Fit and proper person; law and custom; alleged sexually inappropriate remarks by driver; public safety Legislation Cited: Sections 4, 33 Passenger Transport Act 1990 Cases Cited: AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101 (25 May 2012); Director General, Department of Transport v Z (No.2) (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 37; Department of Transport and Infrastructure v Murray [2011] NSWADTAP 16 (8 April 2011); Nasour v Director-General, Transport NSW[2011] NSWADT 91;Director General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65; Category: Principal judgment Parties: Harbi Inaizi (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent) Representation: H Inaizi (Applicant in person) Smythe Wozniak Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 123233

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1This was an application by Mr Harbi Inaizi, the applicant, for review of a decision of the respondent, Roads and Maritime Services, to cancel his authority to drive taxi cabs. 2The applicant's authorisation to drive taxi cabs was cancelled by the respondent and advised to the applicant by letter dated 24 July 2012. The decision was affirmed on internal review on14 August 2012. By application dated 17 August 2012, registered by the tribunal on 21 August 2012, the applicant requested review of the decision by the tribunal. 3The respondent's statement of reasons indicates that the respondent gave consideration to a complaint that on 25 May 2012 the applicant made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to a female passenger in his taxi cab. The respondent also considered the applicant's overall complaints history noting that since receiving a caution in November 2011 about the number of complaints, two further complaints had been registered. The respondent considered the failure of the applicant to notify the respondent of traffic offences as required as an authorised taxi driver; and an allegation that the applicant had driven his taxi while his driver's licence was suspended. The respondent referred to requirements that the applicant be a fit and proper person, and possess sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive the vehicle in accordance with law and custom and in accordance with the conditions under which the taxi service is operated. The respondent decided that the applicant did not meet the required standards for authorisation and decided to cancel his authority.