Ahmed v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATOD 113

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ahmed v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATOD 113 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 24 July 2017 Decision date: 24 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: K Ransome, Senior Member Decision: (1) Mr Ahmed is pay the costs of the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force in the amount of $10,056.40 within 28 days of the date of this decision. Catchwords: COSTS – whether special circumstances – proceedings frivolous or vexatious or lacking in substance – dishonest evidence given to the Tribunal Legislation Cited: Security Industry Act 2997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: Obieta v Australian College of Professionals Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 38 Naylor v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATOD 120 Category: Costs Parties: Naeem Ahmed (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: In Person (Applicant) Bartier Perry (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/00378787

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force ("the Commissioner") seeks his costs of the review by the Tribunal of the Commissioner's decision under the Security Industry Act 1997 to revoke the Class 1AC security licence previously held by Mr Naeem Ahmed. 2. On review, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner that Mr Ahmed is not a fit and proper person to hold a security licence and that it is not in the public interest that he holds such a licence. The Tribunal's decision was made on 16 March 2017. The Commissioner subsequently filed an application for costs which Mr Ahmed opposes. The matter is to be determined on the papers. 3. In its decision of 16 March 2017 the Tribunal found that Mr Ahmed had contravened the Security Industry Act by providing security training in NSW without the appropriate licence. This finding related to activities carried out by Mr Ahmed in late 2015 and early 2016. Mr Ahmed provided security training in NSW to NSW residents to enable those persons to obtain a Queensland security licence. It was then open to the holder of a Queensland licence, under mutual recognition laws, to obtain a NSW security licence. 4. The Tribunal found that Mr Ahmed knew or ought to have known that he was required to be licenced to conduct security training in NSW, even if the training was directed towards obtaining Queensland qualifications and licences. This was particularly the case as the evidence before the Tribunal showed that Mr Ahmed had been convicted of the same offence in 2014. 5. The Tribunal also found that Mr Ahmed was aware that the purpose of the training was to take advantage of the mutual recognition laws and he could therefore deliver less rigorous training by an unqualified trainer to persons who otherwise would not be able to obtain a security licence in NSW. The Tribunal also found that Mr Ahmed was aware that the training he delivered was inadequate as there was no proper training delivered and no assessments of skills.