Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Bedi v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATOD 87 Hearing dates: 30 April 2014 Decision date: 07 August 2014 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: S Leal, Senior Member Decision: The decision of RMS to refuse to grant the applicant an authority to drive a taxi-cab is affirmed. Catchwords: Refusal of taxi-cab driver authority - misuse of Taxi Transport Subsidy Scheme dockets - whether fit and proper Legislation Cited: Passenger Transport Act 1990 Passenger Transport Regulation 2007 Administrative Decision Review Act 1997 Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68 Lal v Director General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Onkar Singh Bedi (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent) Representation: Smythe Wozniak (Respondent) File Number(s): 1420084 reasons for decision Introduction 1Mr Onkar Singh Bedi is a 51-year-old man who was first granted an authority to drive taxi-cabs in 1997. In 1999, he was granted a licence as an accredited taxi operator. 2On 12 March 2013, Mr Bedi's authority to drive taxi-cabs was cancelled. In cancelling Mr Bedi's authority, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) relied both on GPS tracking records and two interviews between officers of the RMS and Mr Bedi. In these interviews, which took place on 24 September 2012 and 5 March 2013, Mr Bedi admitted to accepting Taxi Transport Subsidy Scheme (TTSS) dockets for journeys which had not taken place. 3On 11 December 2013, Mr Bedi applied for a further taxi driver authorisation. Mr Bedi's application was refused by RMS on 3 January 2014. 4On 28 January 2014, Mr Bedi lodged an application for review to this Tribunal and on 30 April 2014, Mr Bedi appeared before the Tribunal in relation to this matter. Review Decision 5In this case, the Tribunal is undertaking a review of the merits of the original decision. The role of the Tribunal is to make the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before it, including any relevant factual material and any applicable written or unwritten law. It then affirms the original decision, varies it, or sets it aside and substitutes another decision. The Tribunal makes its own decision in place of that of RMS and there is no presumption that the decision of RMS is correct. McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 at 357. 6Section 32B of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 empowers RMS to grant and issue to an applicant an authority to drive taxi-cabs. Before an application is granted, the applicant must meet any criteria set forth in the regulations and satisfy RMS as to any matter it considers relevant. 7Regulation 29 of the Passenger Transport Regulation 2007 states that before an authority is granted to drive taxi-cabs, an applicant must satisfy RMS that he or she is of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of the vehicle concerned. 8The issue in this case, then, is whether the decision to refuse Mr Bedi's authority to drive taxi-cabs was the correct and preferable one, having regard to whether Mr Bedi is a fit and proper person, whether he is of good repute and whether he has sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive a taxi-cab. The Tribunal has the power to review this decision pursuant to s9 of the Administrative Decision Review Act 1997 and s52(1) of the Passenger Transport Act 1990. 9The term "fit and proper person" was discussed by Chief Justice Mason in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at [63]. The Chief Justice said that: 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. 10In this case, an authority to drive a taxi-cab can be granted under the Passenger Transport Act 1990, one of the objectives of which is to encourage public passenger services (which include taxi-cab services) that meet the reasonable expectations of the community for safe, reliable and efficient passenger transport services. 11The following factors need to be taken into account in determining a person's suitability and fitness to obtain a taxi-cab authority: * 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; * the applicant's driving record; * the applicant'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. 12In assessing the last factor, the following considerations are relevant: * the length of time since the offences were committed and the circumstances in which they were committed; * 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; * any change in the applicant's circumstances such as increased support from friends, family or professional service providers. Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68 Evidence 13On 24 September 2012, Mr Bedi participated in a record of interview with an officer of RMS. On 5 March 2013, Mr Bedi participated in a further record of interview with another officer of RMS. At hearing, Mr Bedi told the Tribunal that he accepted the content of the two interviews. The transcript of the interview records that Mr Bedi had been cautioned prior to the commencement of each interview and had been advised that he was under no obligation to answer any questions. He also agreed that he had no problem understanding the RMS officers. 14In the interview of 24 September 2012, Mr Bedi agreed that he had held a taxi cab driver's authority since 1997 and that his authority had been endorsed in 2011 to allow him to drive a wheelchair accessible taxi. He also agreed that he had been an accredited taxi operator since 1999. He agreed that in the course of his work, he accepted Taxi Transport Subsidy Scheme dockets from passengers. 15The Taxi Transport Subsidy Scheme (TTSS) is a transport subsidy scheme that provides taxi transport for the severely impaired and disabled in NSW. The TTSS is based on a taxi docket system where the government funds (up to a maximum of $30) half of a taxi journey. 16In his interview on 24 September 2012, Mr Bedi told the RMS officer that he had taken a regular passenger on a long journey at the end of which the passenger advised that he didn't have enough money to pay the fare. Instead of giving him the money he owed, the passenger offered to give Mr Bedi TTSS dockets for journeys that had not taken place. In his interview, Mr Bedi told the officer that he had made mistakes and that he 'didn't want to make the mistakes again.' 17In his subsequent interview on 5 March 2013, when shown a series of TTSS dockets issued to this same passenger, Mr Bedi told the officer: I pick up, sometime I pick up from his home and he go to shopping centre and he just give, he say I give you that docket, don't tell them, start the meter. Then I didn't start the meter and he start, he didn't pay that cash money, the half price. He given me (sic) the docket like some of that where make this city to Caringbah, Caringbah to city or make them both like I done trip. 18When asked whether the journeys had taken place as written on the dockets, Mr Bedi said that they hadn't and agreed that he had written the journey details in himself. Mr Bedi explained that rather than giving him the cash component of the meter, which was then supplemented by the TTSS dockets, the passenger would instead give him a second docket. 19Mr Bedi agreed that he had then submitted the dockets to a cashing station and received money for them. 20When asked whether he knew what he was doing was wrong, Mr Bedi said I know I do wrong but that time just, I don't know what happen to me. 21Mr Bedi told the RMS officer: I can pay all the money what ever the department give me the fine or whatever is charged I get the money from the, this year doesn't matter I lose the money from other side to him and I can pay this money and pay the fine and I just wish the department don't cancel my ID because it's my living in the, I have two small child. 22Mr Wozniak advised the Tribunal that whilst consideration had been given to prosecuting Mr Bedi for these actions, the RMS had decided, instead, to cancel Mr Bedi's licence. 23In his application form seeking review from this Tribunal, Mr Bedi wrote: I want to pay the money I charged on TTSS dockets. I feel my guilt. 24At hearing, Mr Wozniak submitted that Mr Bedi was neither a fit and proper person nor of good repute on the basis of: * his initial lies to investigating officers and subsequent late admissions; * his misuse of 82 TTSS dockets; * his failure, on occasion, to start the taxi meter for journeys (in breach of regulation 161 of the Passenger Transport Regulation 2007) ; * the earlier suspension of his drivers' licence following the loss of his demerit points. 25At hearing before the Tribunal, Mr Bedi agreed to having accepted 82 TTSS dockets in lieu of requesting the relevant cash component from the passenger. 26He told the Tribunal that he has two young children and that he attends his local Sikh temple where he in involved in voluntary community work. He told the Tribunal that he has a good reputation within his community. He admitted to the Tribunal that: I made a very bad mistake and I want to improve myself in other ways. 27In relation to the disabled passenger from whom he had accepted the TTSS dockets in lieu of cash, he said that he had often assisted him by transporting him even on nights when he was not on duty and when the passenger had been otherwise unable to get a driver to pick him up. 28Mr Wozniak told the Tribunal that whilst it was too soon for RMS to favourably consider a further application from Mr Bedi for a taxi-cab licence, the RMS may do so in the future. In support of such an application, Mr Wozniak noted that Mr Bedi would need to provide further information, such as character references, Findings 29Despite his late admissions at interview, the Tribunal accepts that Mr Bedi is remorseful for his actions. In support of his application for review, Mr Bedi relied on his own evidence to the Tribunal and did not submit any professional and personal references to the Tribunal in support of his case. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Bedi was simply been too ashamed of his actions to approach colleagues and community members to provide references for him. Whilst this is consistent with Mr Bedi's expression of remorse, it does not assist Mr Bedi's case to the Tribunal that he is a fit and proper person and of good repute. 30The Tribunal accepts that Mr Bedi has a young family to support and that without his taxi-cab driver's authority, he will find this difficult. In determining whether RMS made the correct and preferable decision in this case, however, the Tribunal cannot take into consideration the hardship to the applicant as a result of the decision. Lal v Director General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74 31Honesty is central to any consideration of whether someone is a fit and proper person with the responsibility and aptitude to drive a public passenger service vehicle in accordance with the statutory conditions, the law and custom. There is a community expectation that taxi drivers will not only provide safe, reliable and clean public passenger services but will also be honest. Mr Bedi's actions in accepting TTSS dockets for journeys that didn't take place are very serious and not in accordance with community expectations of honesty from an authorised driver of a taxi. The TTSS system, which was introduced to provide infirm and disabled passengers with discounted taxi-cab fare, relies both on the honesty integrity of the people who are issued with them and the taxi cab drivers who accept them. Mr Bedi's misuse of the TTSS dockets calls into question his honesty in the discharge of his duties as a taxi-cab driver. 32The fact that Mr Bedi was prepared to accept TTSS dockets for journeys he knew had never taken place is the Tribunal finds, sufficient proof that he is not, at this stage, a fit and proper person to hold a taxi-cab driver authority. 33As the Tribunal has determined that, at this stage, Mr Bedi is not a fit and proper person to hold an authority, it is not necessary to consider whether Mr Bedi is of good repute or whether he has sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive a taxicab, in accordance with the conditions under which a public passenger service is operated, and in accordance with law and custom. 34In light of the above findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that the decision of RMS to refuse Mr Bedi's application for an taxi-cab driver authority should be affirmed. Order 35The decision of RMS to refuse to grant the applicant an authority to drive a taxi-cab is affirmed. ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar 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: 07 August 2014