Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hasan v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWCATOD 132 Hearing dates: 23 September 2015 Decision date: 18 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: J Kelly, Senior Member Decision: The decision made on 14 July 2015 to affirm the decision to refuse the applicant's application for an authority to drive a bus in New South Wales is affirmed. Catchwords: Passenger transport – bus driver authorisation – whether of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a public passenger vehicle Legislation Cited: Passenger Transport Act 1990 (NSW) s 11(2)(a) and 12 Cases Cited: Re T and the Director of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392 Z v Director General, Department of Transport [2000] NSWADT 87 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mohammad Hasan (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: In Person (Applicant) Smythe Wozniak Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 1520130 Judgment The decision under review 1. The applicant, Mohammad Hasan, seeks the review of the decision made on internal review by the Roads and Maritime Services (the respondent) on 14 July 2015 to affirm the decision to refuse the applicant's application for an authority to drive a bus in New South Wales. The law 1. Relevantly, s. 12 of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (the Act) authorises the respondent to grant authorities to persons. The purpose of an authority is to attest 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 public passenger vehicle" (s. 11(2)(a)). The issue in the case 1. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a public passenger vehicle, taking into account the convictions recorded against him on 4 November 2014 and 1 April 2015. The convictions 1. On 4 November 2014 the applicant was convicted of six counts of the offence of "knowingly use false document" and released without passing sentence on entering a self recognisance bond ($500) to be of good behaviour for 12 months. He was also ordered to pay reparation of $443.42. 2. On 1 April 2015, the applicant was convicted of two counts of common assault (domestic violence) against his wife and placed on a good behaviour bond for a period of two years. He was also placed under the supervision of Corrective Services to attend counselling, educational development or drug and alcohol rehabilitation (including domestic violence counselling) as directed. The applicant's evidence and contentions 1. The applicant disclosed the offences in his application for the authority. 2. He was charged with the common assault offences on 22 November 2014. He said that a policewoman and a policeman came to his house. They came again a few months ago and gave evidence to the NSW Probation Service. He has been attending a men's behaviour program twice a week since 7 August 2015. 3. The applicant claimed that his wife was suffering depression and anxiety and was having treatment. She wanted to withdraw the common assault matter but the Court proceeded. He said that nothing happened. It was his wife's "hallucination". 4. They married in 2009 and she had come to Australia from Bangladesh in 2011. 5. The applicant provided a psychologist's report about his wife dated 1 October 2013. 6. In relation to what he described as the "Centrelink matter", the applicant claimed that "they" took six documents for the year 2011 to 2012 but checked the medical reports two years later in 2014. A doctor provided all those documents. The doctor either forgot or was a casual doctor. They misled Centrelink. They did not give the report or cannot remember two years later. He stopped going to those doctors years ago. 7. The applicant had provided two documents from Bangladesh and four from a Lakemba medical practice in relation to his 2012 application for a carer payment for his son who was born on 18 April 2011 in Bangladesh. His wife and child arrived in Australia on 17 December 2011. Centrelink did not make any telephone calls to the doctors in Australia or Bangladesh to see if the documents were correct or not. He was granted a carer payment for his without any such checks. 8. They should have got in touch with the doctors immediately. He had no idea that the documents were false. He always changed doctors, and went to a medical centre where the doctors changed. They forget. 9. At Court, he claimed that he was not asked anything and not given any opportunity to say anything. He was just told to plead guilty. 10. There was a "misconception" with Centrelink and the applicant. He pleaded guilty to solve the matters and promised himself that he would never take any medical report from a casual or unknown doctor. 11. He paid the $500 and goes back to be resentenced. 12. The applicant said that he is fit for every aspect of being a bus driver Consideration 1. "Evidence of conviction for a criminal offence is ... most cogent evidence of bad reputation": Re T and the Director of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392 at 393. However, as Deputy President Hennessy said in Z v Director General, Department of Transport [2000] NSWADT 87 at paragraph 36, a person can "live down" their bad reputation and reform their bad character. All circumstances of the case must be taken into account, including the time since the conviction was recorded. 2. I accept that the patient the subject of the psychologist's report is the applicant's wife, based on a copy of a marriage certificate stating that she married the applicant in Bangladesh in 2009. 3. The psychologist proposed a treatment program focusing on specified psycho-education. The report did not mention a diagnosis or that the patient suffered hallucinations. I find that the report does not support the applicant's claim that the assault was his wife's hallucination. Further, the report is dated more than a year before the offences occurred and therefore may not reflect her condition in November 2014. I give the report no weight. 4. The applicant had the opportunity during the court proceedings in respect of both sets of offences to give evidence and argue his case. I do not accept his explanations in respect of the common assault offences or the knowingly use false document offences. I consider both categories of offence serious and to reflect adversely on his reputation and fitness and propriety. 5. Even if I accept that his wife wished to withdraw the common assault charges, clearly the prosecutor considered that there was evidence to prove the case to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt and the Court found the offences proved according to that standard. 6. The use false documents knowingly offences indicate dishonesty and a lack of integrity. The offences are also recent and little time has elapsed since the convictions were recorded. 7. I have taken into account that the offences were not so serious as to require custodial sentences. 8. There is no evidence before me apart from the convictions and the applicant's evidence, as to his reputation and fitness and propriety to be authorised to drive a public passenger vehicle. 9. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the applicant is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a public passenger vehicle. ORDER For the above reasons, I affirm the decision made on 14 July 2015 to affirm the decision to refuse the applicant's application for an authority to drive a bus in New South Wales. 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: 18 November 2015