Ghachame v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 144

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ghachame v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 144 Hearing dates: 30 April and 3 June 2013 Decision date: 20 June 2013 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: C Huntsman, Judicial member Decision: The decision is affirmed Catchwords: Recent criminal offences for contravention of apprehended violence order, repeat offences, history of complaints, history of authority, fit and proper Legislation Cited: Passenger Transport Act 1990 Cases Cited: Ghachame v Director General, Department of Transport [2000] NSWADT 113 AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101 Director General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ali Ghachame (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Mr Cohen (Applicant) Smythe Wozniak Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 123324

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1This was an application by Mr Ghachame, the applicant, for review of the decision of Roads and Maritime Services, the respondent, to refuse his application for an authority to drive taxis. The applicant had applied to renew his taxi driver authority on 23 August 2012 (his authority was due to expire on 29 August 2012). Prior to the application to renew the authority, the applicant had been issued, by letter dated 23 April 2012, with a Notice to Show Cause why his authority to not be cancelled. The decision to refuse the applicant's application for an authority was affirmed by the respondent on internal review on 16 October 2012. On 12 November 2012 the applicant applied for review by the tribunal. The matter was listed for directions and subsequently listed for hearing on 20 February 2013. On that date it was adjourned, and the hearing commenced on 30 April 2013, was adjourned part heard and finalised on 3 June 2013, when the tribunal reserved its decision. 2In the internal review decision the respondent notes the applicant's recent criminal convictions and finds that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to be authorised to drive taxis. At the hearing the respondent also relied on the history of complaints, and warnings and prior cancellation and suspension decisions, to demonstrate the respondent' view that the applicant was not fit and proper. 3The applicant gave evidence about the recent convictions which he states were in the context of marital separation and anxiety and depression, and distress also about a diagnosis of a physical health condition. He states he has been engaged in treatment and on medication and that he is fit and proper to be authorised to drive taxis.