The respondent's decision is affirmed

1. This case is about whether the applicant, Mr Geoffrey Bowland, is currently a fit and proper person to hold a private security operator licence to be a security guard and crowd controller.
2. Mr Bowland has applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision of Victoria Police to cancel his licence. He makes his application for review under section 150(1)(a) of the Private Security Act 2004.
3. In the decision made 17 November 2014, the delegate of Victoria Police cancelled Mr Bowland's licence because of concerns about Mr Bowland's mental health, and because it appeared he had failed to declare recent mental health treatment in his previous licence applications.
4. The decision to cancel Mr Bowland's licence arose from a series of visits he made to Bendigo Police Station in 2013 and 2014. He wanted the police to read a document and take action on the allegations in it. The document was a lengthy journal/biography. Based on the contents of the document and Mr Bowland's conversations at the front counter, police members became concerned about his mental health. A LEAP check showed Mr Bowland had a private security agent licence and had held a firearms licence.
5. After a conversation with Mr Bowland, Leading Senior Constable Mark Wilkinson made contact with Bendigo Health Care Group Psych Services through the PACER[1] unit at the police station. He became aware of what he described as a long history with mental illness dating back to at least 1999 when Mr Bowland was arrested under the Mental Health Act after being located sitting in the Judge's chair at the Bendigo County Court and refusing to leave.
6. The allegations that particularly concerned police included that Mr Bowland said he had been implanted with a secret Chinese torturing implant some years ago while his GP was shining a light into his ear. Mr Bowland said that the illegal implant is programmable by others and can be remotely controlled by others to cause him pain and direct his actions. Mr Bowland also alleged that he had been the victim of an attempted murder in 2002 when a plasma cutter had come up through his bed and severed his spine.
7. Mr Bowland says that the events described in his document are true and he wants police to investigate them. He wants to continue to work as a security guard. He says that he is not under any treatment, does not have a mental health condition and does not need to take any medication. He says that the allegations are also relevant to a WorkSafe claim he wishes to take to the Court. It is clear that Mr Bowland wants to pursue compensation claims against a former employer he blames for causing him harm via the implant, and the doctor who he says implanted the device and also kicked him several times.
8. Mr Bowland has one relevant Court finding against him. In 2003, he was found guilty without conviction of possessing a prohibited weapon (a baton) without exemption/approval. He was fined $300.00. He disclosed the finding on an earlier licence application. It appears he has not disclosed his interaction with mental health services in 1999 on any licence application.
9. At the hearing the respondent relied on the written statements and oral evidence of:
   • Leading Senior Constable Mark Wilkinson, Divisional Firearms Office, Bendigo Police Station; and
   • Senior Constable Cameron Dean, Bendigo Police Station.
10. Mr Bowland represented himself. He gave evidence and summonsed as a witness his sister, Ailsa O'Callaghan. Late in the hearing, he also provided a character reference from Ms Ruth Thorne, of Ruth Thorne Counselling and Training, who has known him as a result of his participation in a 12-week Alpha course she ran at Holy Trinity Church in Bendigo.
11. Both Mr Bowland and Ms King, solicitor for the respondent, made submissions.

1. On a review, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker and considers the matter afresh. The Tribunal considers all the material before the decision-maker and any additional relevant evidence available at the time of the hearing. The Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the decision, or remit the matter to the decision-maker with recommendations.
2. Mr Bowland clearly wished to prove that various people had done him harm, and saw these proceedings as an opportunity to obtain evidence that would help him pursue a long-standing workers compensation claim. He also sought to make the police investigate the claims in his document. As I explained to Mr Bowland at the hearing, it is not the role of the Tribunal to investigate and make findings on criminal allegations and allegations of breaches of workplace safety such as the ones he makes in his document. Nor is it the Tribunal's role to require the police to carry out an investigation.
3. I say more about his document and its relevance below.

1. The occupation of private security operator is a regulated occupation and requires a licence. Those wishing to work as security guards, whether armed or unarmed, crowd controllers, investigators, bodyguards or private security trainers must hold a licence as a private security individual operator that authorises them to carry on one or more of those activities.
2. The Private Security Act 2004 (Vic) (the Act) is the relevant legislation. The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police has the regulatory responsibility for licensing under the Act.
3. Section 1 of the Act sets out the Act's purposes:

(a) to provide for the licensing and registration of certain participants in the private security industry; and

(b) to otherwise regulate the private security industry for the purposes of ensuring public safety and peace;...

1. Under section 50 of the Act, if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that there are grounds for believing the holder of a private security licence, if they were applying for a new licence, would be refused such a licence the Chief Commissioner may hold a disciplinary inquiry. That is what happened in this case.
2. Mr Bowland received notice of the inquiry and the grounds for it, and made submissions. The delegate of the Chief Commissioner made his decision on 17 November 2014.
3. In Mr Bowland's case, the respondent relies on sections 25(1)(a) and (b) and 25(2)(a) namely -

(1) The Chief Commissioner must not grant a private security individual operator licence if -

(a) he or she is satisfied that the granting of the licence is not in the public interest; or

(b) he or she is not satisfied that the applicant meets the probity requirements set out in subsection (2); or

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the probity requirements are that the person -

1. In a number of cases,[2] the Tribunal has considered the personal characteristics called for in a person undertaking the duties of crowd controller and security guard. Those characteristics are generally articulated as a basic level of honesty, trustworthiness and integrity.
2. In Azadzoi v Chief Commissioner of Police[3] His Honour Judge Misso said the following:

It is abundantly clear to me that the duties which a security guard and a crowd controller undertake require the holder of such a licence to behave in a manner consistent with the adequate discharge of those responsibilities.

While it is unnecessary to exhaustively define precisely what characteristics are called for it must include at least a basic level of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness.

If those characteristics are absent because the holder of the licence has a history consistent with not being of good character, or after obtaining such licence evidence of conduct consistent with not being of good character then that must inevitably impinge on whether a licence should be granted or retained.

1. In Expetito v Victoria Police[4], Deputy President Lambrick observed that -

Honesty, integrity and trustworthiness are characteristics which have been identified in previous decisions of this Tribunal as being relevant but the facts of each case will require independent analysis as to whether they would lean to findings against an individual holding a security licence.

1. I would add to those characteristics reliability and self-control in a crisis - an ability to act in a manner consistent with ensuring public safety and peace. As Ms King submitted, a licensee may be required to remain calm in an explosive situation; exercise control over one or more people without resorting to violence; be verbally strong and clear; and must be fit to respond to the demands of a range of situations.
2. The Tribunal has considered the question of mental fitness and reliability, in the context of a licence under the Act, in Ahmed v Victoria Police [2012] VCAT 1043.
3. Ahmed concerned a licensee who came to a police station and had a conversation with police members that caused them to be concerned about his mental health.
4. Mr Ahmed said that he was seeking police assistance because he believed that some people were using artificial intelligence to manipulate him and were causing him pain.
5. The police members' concerns led to a disciplinary inquiry. Mr Ahmed's licence was cancelled and he applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. Senior Member Steele considered that, based on Mr Ahmed's statements, he was likely to be suffering from hallucinations or delusions because some of the things he related as having happened to him could not be a true reflection of what had happened to him.[5]
6. As the Senior Member observed,[6] the Tribunal is not qualified to diagnose mental illness but she could not ignore that Mr Ahmed believed that events had occurred which could not possibly have occurred. Those beliefs raised the risk that he would be unreliable in certain situations likely to arise for a person working as a crowd controller or security guard, such as situations involving people who are agitated or aggressive or who require calm management.
7. I consider the relevance of those observations to Mr Bowland's case below.

Is Mr Bowland a fit and proper person to hold a licence?

1. In their evidence, both SC Dean and LSC Wilkinson said that Mr Bowland's document and his conversations with them raised concerns for them. Both accepted that Mr Bowland believed that all he had written about was true. That, together with the way the document was written, was the basis of their concern.
2. Both police members were concerned by Mr Bowland's belief that he had been implanted with a secret Chinese or 'satanic' torture device, and that he believed that his spine had been severed by a plasma cutter that came up through his bed.
3. As they readily conceded, they are police officers not doctors, but they have substantial experience in dealing with the public, including those who are mentally ill. It is part of their job to make an assessment about the credibility of a report and decide whether police should investigate. Importantly, there is a PACER unit at Bendigo police station with a mental health clinician available. LSC Wilkinson raised his concerns with the clinician after his conversation with Mr Bowland.
4. I have read the updated document Mr Bowland provided with his review application. It is 133 pages long and has 34 chapters with chapter headings such as 'The Illegal Satanic Torturing Implant, and Repetitive Stalking, and Aiding and Abetting Crime', 'Programmable side effects', and 'I class this event, as being Brain Washed, or having my Memory Blocked'. The title is 'WORLD WARNING THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED TO ME THE BLOODY LYING BASTARDS'.
5. In the document, Mr Bowland alleges that in June 1999 a GP inserted an 'illegal satanic torturing implant' into his head which is programmable by a number of monitoring persons to inflict torture and pain on him and also dictate to him that he do certain things. He refers to the voices in his head from the monitoring persons that he started to hear after his GP shone a light in his ear. He believes that the implant is used to brain wash him, and also operates as 'an illegal slave driving torturing implant' affecting his driving and causing him to experience pain, to vomit, and to smell a foul odour.
6. The document describes Mr Bowland's significant and long-standing distress at what he believes is happening to him. It is distressing to read. LSC Wilkinson said that he tried to read a couple of pages but it was 'doing my head in'. It is certainly not a coherent narrative but it is clear that Mr Bowland believes others have caused him pain and incapacity and are continuing to do so.
7. At page 20, Mr Bowland refers to the incident at the Bendigo County Court in 1999 and writes that the monitoring persons dictated that he go and sit in the judge's seat. He told the person who asked what he was doing there that he had a voice in his head dictating that he had to do it.
8. I accept the evidence of LSC Wilkinson that there is a record of Mr Bowland being arrested under the Mental Health Act in 1999 and conveyed to Bendigo Hospital for a mental health assessment.
9. Mr Bowland agreed that he had had contact with the Bendigo Health Mental Health Team in the last few years. He said he had a couple of visits from them but nothing more is required. He said that he had advice from a doctor not to listen to the voices in his head.
10. From a letter in evidence dated 31 October 2014, it appears that around that date Mr Bowland ceased to receive follow up with the Bendigo Health team. The letter gives Mr Bowland information about what to do if he feels he needs their services again.
11. Mr Bowland called his sister, Ailsa O'Callaghan to give evidence to support his account of what had happened to him. She remembered the time in about 2002 when she and his mother came over, because they had not heard from him and were worried. They had to break a window because he did not come to the door. He was lying on his bed and said he was in pain from his back. He was upright when they left him. Mr Bowland himself said that it took him some time to get up to get into the kitchen.
12. This is the time when Mr Bowland says that his spine was severed by a plasma cutter. It is a reasonable conclusion that Mr Bowland's spine could not have been severed by a plasma cutter or anything else that came up through his bed.
13. Mrs O'Callaghan said that she was aware that Mr Bowland thought he had a device implanted in his head through which she communicated to him somehow, but she did not know of it. She is aware that he thinks he can hear voices. He suggested she used a mobile phone or a scanner. She said she does not own a mobile phone and does not communicate with him in this way. She agreed with Mr Bowland that he does not take any form of medication. In relation to his mental health, she said only that he seems to live in his own world and has not been able to work for some time. She said he has had a troubled life.
14. There is no clear evidence as to whether Mr Bowland has been diagnosed with any particular mental illness. There is sufficient evidence, in my view, to find that he has had interactions with mental health professionals on occasion, certainly in 1999 and more recently until October 2014 when he ceased to receive follow up from Bendigo Health. It is also clear that he does not regard himself as having a mental illness of any kind and does not take any medication. It is clear that he would refuse to do so. It appears he is able to manage on his own. He has his own place to live. He receives a disability pension.
15. The character reference provided by Ruth Thorne is favourable. She says that she has known him for over two years through his participation in a course she helped run at a church in Bendigo, and that she found him to be of sound character, that he listens, respects others, is helpful and willing to share his opinions as appropriate within the group context. My observation of Mr Bowland at the hearing was that he was able to keep himself under reasonable control, although he shouted briefly at both police witnesses. He had difficulty framing coherent questions at times but managed to make the points he wished to make.
16. Mr Bowland submitted that he has held a licence since 2002 and has worked as a security guard from time to time at the races and at KFC without any incident, although not in the last 18 months. As LSC Wilkinson said, however, in answer to a question in cross-examination, the police depend on applicants for licences disclosing relevant matters such as mental health issues. It is unlikely that Mr Bowland would have obtained the licence if he had disclosed the incident in 1999, certainly not without providing a medical report. Whether or not Mr Bowland accepts that he has a mental health condition, he had an obligation to disclose that he had been arrested under the Mental Health Act and taken to Bendigo Hospital.
17. What conclusions can be drawn from the evidence? As Senior Member Steele observed in Ahmed v Victoria Police, while the Tribunal is not qualified to diagnose mental illness, it cannot ignore that an applicant believes to be true events that are unlikely or impossible to be true. Mr Bowland believes that his spine was severed by a plasma cutter in 2002 and that he has been tortured for over 15 years via an implanted device. It is most unlikely that this can be true and more likely that these beliefs are associated with a mental illness.
18. I do not have to reach a firm view on the matter, and certainly do not make any attempt at a diagnosis - that is a matter between Mr Bowland and his health professionals if there are any further concerns. However, in the context of deciding whether Mr Bowland is fit to hold a private security operator licence, and whether it is not in the public interest that he do so, I must take his beliefs into account.
19. Mr Bowland believes that various people are using an implanted device to direct his behaviours; dictate to him what he has to do; and control him. I am satisfied that there is a real risk that Mr Bowland would be unreliable in a situation requiring control of agitated or aggressive people, requiring a calm assessment of and reaction to a situation, and requiring high levels of self-control and insight into his own and other's behaviour.
20. For these reasons, I am satisfied that it is not in the public interest that he hold a private security operator licence, and that he does not meet the probity requirement of being fit and proper to hold the licence. In all the circumstances, the decision of the respondent to cancel his licence is affirmed.

[1] Police Ambulance Clinician Emergency Response unit

[2] E.g., Azadzoi v Chief Commissioner of Police [2010] VCAT 1329; Expetito v Victoria Police [2013] VCAT 739; TLP v Chief Commissioner of Police [2014] VCAT 429

[3] [2010] VCAT 1329 at paras 28-30

[4] [2013] VCAT 739