60. The Tribunal is also referred to the transcript at T16 page 226. The court after hearing the evidence accepted that:

• Preceding the confrontation that led to the conviction, the victim heard the applicant yelling words to the effect the victim was a paedophile;
• The victim was abused by the applicant and taunted by the applicant and his children;
• The applicant produced a machete hidden behind his back
• The applicant's conduct was calculated and there was an element of vigilantism;
• The applicant at the time had a psychiatric condition
• The applicant was described as a violent offender
• Had it not been for the applicant's psychiatric condition, the applicant would have been sentenced to 4 years imprisonment
• The victim suffered a very severe injury. The victim was hospitalised requiring surgery, requiring a plate to be inserted in the victim's skull
• The victim's lifestyle and employment has been affected. The victim suffered a psychiatric injury and he was unable to return to work due to post traumatic stress disorder and has suffered financially. There is no evidence that the applicant has offered or paid any compensation to the victim or apologised to the victim.

1. However, he denied calling the victim a paedophile and disagreed with the comment concerning vigilantism. In his evidence, the applicant referred to conduct of the victim, who was his neighbour, comments made by the victim about his children and the finding by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal that the applicant's wife had been racially vilified by the victim. An extract of the reasons of QCAT is found that AB 11-12.
2. Also, while accepting that hiding machete when approaching the victim may indicate some element of planning in committing a violent offence, the applicant did not agree with the finding that he hid a machete behind his back.
3. My impression of this evidence is that the applicant sought to excuse some of his conduct in respect of his attack on the victim because he was reacting to conduct of the victim both at the time of the attack and prior to that time.
4. In making this observation, I note when asked whether he thought the sentence imposed by the District Court was fair, the applicant said he pleaded guilty. He also indicated that he had been required "by law" to pay $14,000 compensation to the victim in respect of injuries the victim sustained and had made that payment.
5. When asked whether he was uncooperative or hostile with staff of the department he said "no, never". Rather, he said that the repeated questioning by one of the Department's officers, amounted to harassment and bullying.
6. The applicant was shown his email dated 14 April 2024 (TB 353-4), particularly the fourth paragraph on page 2 of that document, where the applicant stated:

You are a shameless people, bunch of cowards, hiding behind legislation and bullying and harassing people to satisfy your retardation that working for Home Affairs make you some kind of James Bond and you can exercise your stupid power. Rapist, repeated drug offenders have no problem obtaining the ASIC card. I have held Australia wide ASIC card for many years before I was sentenced or charged and had not a single issue, after serving my sentence, I held a ASIC card and not a single issue, and now your incompetent racist, hide behind legislation and denying me from earning a honest living.

7. While accepting this was not a normal response, the applicant said that he felt bullied.
8. The applicant was then shown another response contained in his email to the Department dated 21 March 2024 (TB 264). In that email, the applicant said:

Please be advised that you are not fooling anyone. > > I wrote to the minister of your incompetence and bullying and now you find getting offensive is best way to defend yourself by picking every little thing. > > You should be ashamed of yourself. > > The reason you have job ready card and discretionary card is for people like me. > > I will provide all I can, meanwhile I have filed a report with Human Rights Commission and they have accepted my complaint. > > I have also filed a complaint with AAT, of your unreasonable demands. > > I am talking to my lawyer and looking at my options to take the minister and secretary to court. > > You playing power to punish me is disgusting act if (sic) a coward. I am not going suffer because of your incompetence. Till yesterday you did not much about job ready card.

9. The Applicant accepted that he understood that the Departmental officer may himself have felt intimidated but said this was the same reaction he had in response to what had happened to him in dealing with the Department.
10. When asked whether he had a "short fuse", the applicant said no and that he was being asked irrelevant questions.
11. The applicant was also asked about providing any medical evidence concerning any mental health issues which might alleviate the need for any condition to be imposed of a type thought necessary by the respondent's delegate in making the April decision. The applicant said that where he lived made it difficult getting any report and that such reports were expensive.
12. As to his reference in recent emails concerning his application to the Department about having a disability, he said this was his heart condition, not any mental health issue.

1. The parties' submissions are found in both the written material and in oral submissions made at the hearing.
2. In addition, at the end of the hearing, the applicant was given leave to file a response to the Respondent's written submissions. He did so in the document entitled "Applicant's Response to Statements of Facts and Contentions by the Respondent".
3. The respondent provided submissions in reply (respondent's reply submissions).
4. It is convenient to deal with the respondent's position first.

1. The respondent submitted that the application under clause 6.29 of the Regulations should be refused. Alternatively, the decision of the Secretary should be affirmed.
2. This position was summarised in the respondent's written submissions as follows:[12]

94. The respondent contends that the applicant's behaviour leading to the offence that resulted in the 2015 offence, his behaviour towards the NSW police wherein he made unsubstantiated claims of being "corrupt" and "racist" and his more recent communications with the respondent demonstrate a disturbing display of volatility and aggressive behaviour towards others. > > 95. The Tribunal should not be satisfied that the applicant does not constitute a threat to the security of aviation transport, considering the matters the Tribunal must take into account under r.6.29(5). > > 96. The applicant is not a reasonable candidate for a discretionary ASIC, taking into account the nature of the offence the applicant has been convicted of and all the other relevant matters the Tribunal must take into account. > > 97. In the alternative, the respondent contends that the Tribunal may only be satisfied that the applicant does not pose a threat to aviation security if he complies with the conditions and a Psychiatrist provides a report to that effect. > > 98. The correct or preferable decision is to affirm the respondent's decision to approve the issue of an ASIC to the applicant with the proposed condition and in the alternative, that the approval for the issue of an ASIC to the applicant be refused.

3. Referring to the decision of the AAT in Maksimovic and Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development[13] (Maksimovic), the respondent says that ASICs "are integral to the security of the aviation industry", namely to "safeguard against unlawful interference with aviation". In this regard the Tribunal in Maksimovic said: [14]

In seeking to safeguard aviation against this risk so far as possible it is important that ASIC's not be issued to persons engaged in, or likely to engage in, criminal activity.

4. Also relevant, the respondent submitted, was the heightened global awareness of security in airports and in the aviation industry. [15]
5. The respondent submitted that the test to be applied is that set out in Ahmad and Secretary, Department of Home Affairs[16] (Ahmad). There the Tribunal said:

55. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal cannot conclude that he is not a threat to the security of maritime transport or an offshore facility.

6. In the context of s 10(1)(f) of the Act and assessment to be made, the respondent referred to the decision of the AAT in Townley and Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development[17] (Townley), stating "the Tribunal took into account both 'threats of violence' and the 'behaviour of the applicant towards Departmental officers'".[18]
7. Townley was a case concerning an application to issue a Maritime Security identification Card (MSIC) under the relevant legislation which was refused by the AAT.
8. Townley, the respondent submitted, involved "only physical damage ... to a victim's front gate. This is in contrast to the injuries suffered by the victim to the applicant's offending" in the present proceedings before the Tribunal.[19]
9. Of the conviction for grievous bodily harm, the respondent submitted "the circumstances of the offence involved a neighbourhood dispute over a three-year period with at least 3 instances of violent confrontation between the applicant and his neighbour, ultimately accumulating to the offence for which the applicant was convicted in 2015".[20] Having referred to various parts of the transcript of the sentencing hearing and evidence given in connection therewith, the respondent continued:[21]

59 The transcript also shows an insight into the applicant's behaviour when his complaints are not resolved to his satisfaction in that the applicant was prepared to level charges against NSW police, suggesting the police were corrupt and behaved in a racist manner of racism which the prosecution (Mr ROBSON) said were unsubstantiated.

While both the background of ongoing conflict between the applicant and his neighbour and the applicant's pre-existing psychiatric or psychological condition were considered mitigating factors by the court in the circumstances to the offending, the respondent contends that the role of the Tribunal is to consider whether the applicant should be approved to be issued an ASIC and should only consider mitigating factors to the offence leading to the 2015 conviction in the context of whether the applicant's character, as demonstrated by his behaviour, demonstrates that the applicant is an unacceptable risk to the safety and secure operation of airports and to the safety of persons at airports.

11. Of the applicant's communications with the respondent, the respondent makes the following submissions:

(a) The applicant never expresses remorse or regret concerning the conviction for grievous bodily harm. Rather he seeks to misrepresent the facts of the offence and minimise the seriousness of the offence. In this regard reference is made between email from the applicant to the respondent dated 8 March 2024[22]. Whether a reflection of memory or an attempt to mislead the Minister, the respondent says the applicant's version of facts concerning his offending "is totally at odds with the facts of the offending, as found by the court"[23] . > > (b) Threats of legal action against the Department and its officers were made in order to have the Department desist from requesting information; [24] > > (c) The respondent is concerned "that the applicant is fixated on one particular Departmental officer who the applicant alleges is 'out there for revenge'". This, the respondent says, is "of particular concern in the context of his behaviour towards his neighbour leading to the 2015 offence.[25] > > (d) Having regard to the content of his communications, the respondent "contends that due to the applicant's history of mental health issues and propensity to be hostile and aggressive, there is a reasonable concern about the applicant's emotional and social vulnerability in the aviation environment".[26] > > (e) In short, the applicant's conduct "suggests a long term pattern of aggressive behaviour towards officials by the applicant when frustrated".[27]

12. In oral submissions, when asked by the Tribunal about the respondent granting permission in 2022 in connection with an earlier application for an ASIC, the respondent said it no longer held a view that the conduct of the applicant in relation to the conviction was an isolated issue. Rather, his interaction with staff and with the Police shows a pattern of behaviour, the delegate determining the present application taking the view that there was doubt about the applicant and therefore a psychiatrist report should be obtained as a condition of approval.
13. Reference was then made to the purpose of the legislation and the wide definition of unlawful interference, the respondent submitting that the Tribunal should refuse the application.
14. In making these submissions, the respondent again referred to the decisions of Ahmad and Townley and the need of the Department to reassess an applicant and their suitability for approval each time an application is made.

1. In the Tribunal application under the heading "Why do you claim the decision is wrong?" the applicant states: [28]

The decision and reason for decision are not based on facts. Decision has been made by a delegate, not incorrect frame of mind, driven by anger and revenge after I wrote to Minister about delegates incompetence, harassment and bullying. Some of the delegates mistakes have been admitted by his supervisor in writing and I have evidence for others. > > The condition attached to the decision is unfair, not workable and abuse of process, abuse of legislation and display of power. The review of the decision was denied to me by the delegate and secretary of Home Affairs. > > Reasons for condition is based on false assumption, outside context, selective information to suit delegate, lies, discrimination and abuse of Australian Human Rights Act where I have been put on trial and judgement delivered by delegate for a single crime for which I have already served my sentence, 8 years ago.

2. In oral submissions, the applicant explained that he has worked in the aviation industry for most of his life and has never breached any security requirements. He previously had an ASIC approved without conditions.
3. He accepts that if there is a risk of violence or conduct of a type contemplated by s 10 of the Act, that would be a basis for refusing an ASIC. However, he submits he did not make any threats of violence in communications with the Department in relation to the current application and does not pose any risk of a type contemplated by the Act.
4. The applicant submitted that his position was different to that considered by the AAT in cases such as Townley. His conduct in his dealings with the Department were not a basis to reach a conclusion there was a relevant risk. He had served his sentence following conviction for grievous bodily harm and had not engaged in any other criminal conduct. In short, there was no conduct that would disqualify him from being issued with an ASIC or that would justify the imposition of a condition.
5. He said that his current medical issues were not psychologically based, referring to the medical summary which I have identified above.

1. There is no dispute the applicant was convicted of a tier 3 offence as defined by the Regulations and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and, therefore, he has an adverse criminal record for the purpose of the Regulations. Consequently, an ASIC may only be issued to him where permission has been granted by the respondent.
2. In these circumstances, the Secretary has power to give permission for the issue of an ASIC under clause 6.29 of the Regulations. It is the power to grant or refuse permission to a person with an adverse criminal record, who without such permission could not be issued with an ASIC.
3. I accept the respondent's submission that the power "must be exercised in accordance with the language by which it is conferred and to achieve the purposes for which the power has been granted". [29]
4. Clause 6.29(5) of the Regulations, set out above, operates as a precondition to approving or refusing to approve permission. It requires the Secretary (or this Tribunal on review) to consider both the offending (in this case a Tier 3 offence), the conduct and employment history of an applicant and anything else relevant that is known to the decision maker.
5. Consistent with the purpose of safeguarding against unlawful interference with aviation, as defined in s 10 of the Act, in determining an application and exercising the power conferred, regard may be had to any facts that might tend to show the likelihood an applicant has or will engage in conduct which constitutes unlawful interference with aviation. As such, they are relevant considerations.
6. In the present case, the respondent contends that the conviction for grievous bodily harm, the dealings of the applicant with his neighbours and the police concerning events surrounding the offence and his communications with the Department in connection with the present application demonstrate there is a risk of the applicant committing an act of a type set out in s 10(1)(f) of the Act, namely:

(h) committing an act at an airport, or causing any interference or damage, that puts the safe operation of the airport, or the safety of any person at the airport, at risk.

7. The respondent says that the approach in Ahmad and Townley is to be adopted in assessing an application.
8. In Townley, the AAT had to consider whether the person applying for a MSIC "constitutes a threat to the security of maritime transport or an offshore facility" for the purposes of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 (Cth) (Maritime Regulations).[30] The factors to be considered are in similar terms to those found in clause 6.29 of the Regulations.
9. Clause 6.29 does not, by its terms, require the Secretary to determine whether an applicant "constitutes a threat". Rather, what is to be assessed is the likelihood of committing an act that could give rise to the identified risk having regard to the adverse criminal record and the matters identified in clause 6.29(5).
10. On one view, under the Regulations, the threshold for determining whether a person may commit an act that might put at risk the safe operation of an airport or the safety of those at an airport is a lower threshold than whether that person constitutes a threat to security of people or property under the Maritime Regulations. Although, as can be seen in Townley at [76], the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (Cth) also uses the expression "unlawful interference" which was in similar terms to that defined in s 10(1) of the Act.
11. Whether or not that is correct, it is both appropriate and relevant to assess conduct of an applicant on a continuing basis from when the event giving rise to the adverse criminal record occurred to the date of the application as well as the applicant's antecedents insofar as that might cast light upon the risk being assessed and its likelihood of occurrence in the future. In addition, the personal circumstances of an applicant may be relevant. Matters to be considered may include an applicant's history of criminal conduct, facts that might show a propensity to engage in such conduct and facts (such as medical history) that might explain such conduct and its likelihood of recurrence.
12. In determining the present case, the respondent has, in effect, submitted that the past and continuing conduct of the applicant manifests a relevant risk which warrants refusing his application. The respondent says the applicant's conduct demonstrates a more substantial risk than that of Mr Townley. As such, on a comparative basis, the Tribunal should decide to refuse to grant permission under clause 6.29 for the issue of an ASIC.
13. In Townley, the AAT said: [31]

75. As the Tribunal finds that Mr Townley has "an adverse criminal record" by virtue of being convicted and sentenced in relation to a "maritime-security-relevant offence," the Tribunal must now consider whether Mr Townley constitutes "a threat to the security of maritime transport or an offshore facility" having regard to the mandatory considerations contained in regulation 6.08F(5) of the Regulations outlined above. > > 76. In relation to the expression "a threat to the security of maritime transport or an offshore facility", the Tribunal notes the analysis of that term undertaken by Delegate Pauline Sullivan dated 14 August 2015 (T1 at page 14) as follows: > > 6.2 A threat to the security of maritime transport or an offshore facility is not defined in the MTOFSA or MTOFSR and therefore has its ordinary or natural meaning. > > 6.3 In accordance with the Macquarie Dictionary (6th Edition), threat as far as is relevant, means "an indication of probable evil to come; something that gives an indication of causing evil or harm". Security, as far as relevant, means "(1) freedom from danger, risk etc.; safety; and (2) protection from or measures taken against espionage, theft, infiltration, sabotage, or the like". > > 6.4 Referring to the MTOFSA, I note that under Section 11, paragraph (l)(a), the meaning of unlawful interference with maritime transport or offshore facilities includes "committing an act, or causing any interference or damage, that puts the safe operation of a port, or the safety of any person or property at the port, at risk". > > 77. Against this background, the Tribunal finds that Mr Townley should not be granted an MSIC as he constitutes a threat to the security of maritime transport or an offshore facility. The 2005 offences for which Mr Townley received a suspended sentence are, as noted by the sentencing judge (the Chief Judge of the District Court), very serious. The justice system simply cannot function as it should if potential witnesses are threatened with violence and intimidated into not providing evidence in court proceedings. > > 78. While Mr Townley has only one maritime related offence and while this offence occurred 11 years ago, the Tribunal notes that there are other, also quite serious criminal offences recorded in 2012, an extensive criminal record overall, and a pattern of extraordinarily aggressive and threatening behaviour by Mr Townley directed at government employees and others. > > 79. Further, while Mr Townley claims to have undergone some sort of anger management training, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that this has had any impact on an extensive pattern of aggressive behaviour frequently demonstrated when Mr Townley is frustrated or does not get what he believes he is entitled to. > > 80. Mr Townley has endured considerable hardship throughout his life. The result is that he does not trust authority figures and often feels unable to express himself in ways that are not aggressive and/or emotive. This has resulted in an extensive criminal record of the sort that will, undoubtedly, make employment opportunities harder to come by. > > 81. While the Tribunal has considerable sympathy for Mr Townley, the Tribunal takes particular note of the importance of safeguarding maritime security in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Townley does pose a threat to this security. Maritime facilities in this country simply cannot function safely and efficiently if persons with a criminal background and volatile temperament of the sort displayed here are granted an MSIC. Accordingly, Mr Townley cannot be granted an MSIC.

14. As will be apparent from these statements, the criminal conduct of Mr Townley was more extensive than that of the present applicant.
15. In this regard, I do not accept the respondent's characterisation of Mr Townley's conduct as relating to "only physical damage ... to a victim's front gate". [32] As set out in Townley at [33] and following, the incident with Mr Townley concerning the front gate occurred in much broader circumstances, including, where Mr Townley had made a threat to kill another person and had damaged other property.
16. Further, as noted in Townley at [80] above, in relation to the aggressive nature of Mr Townley and his inability to manage his emotions, the Tribunal concluded that his conduct has "resulted in an extensive criminal record of the sort that will, undoubtedly, make employment opportunities harder to come by." Some of that conduct occurred while exercising access rights using his MSIC.
17. In any event, comparison with other decisions, other than in identifying relevant considerations and principles to be applied, provides limited assistance in determining whether permission should be granted in a particular case.
18. As outlined above, there is competing evidence concerning matters relevant to assessing the application in question. This evidence goes to both whether permission should be granted and whether conditions should be imposed.
19. For the purposes of deciding this application, as noted above, I must consider the factors in clause 6.29(5)(a)-(e) of the Regulations. Clause 6.29(5)(d) is not relevant as the sentence imposed in connection with the tier 3 offence was not wholly suspended.
20. In respect of those matters, I make the following findings.
21. On 5 March 2015, the applicant was convicted of an offence of grievous bodily harm The offence occurred on 5 December 2012, more than 12 years ago.
22. The applicant was sentence in the District Court of Queensland to a period of 3 years imprisonment, of which 2 years was suspended. In addition, the District Court imposed an operational period of 3 years in respect of that part of the sentence that was suspended. That required the applicant "not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment during the operational period ... if [he is] to avoid being dealt with for the suspended sentence".[33]
23. In accordance with the sentence imposed by the District Court, the applicant served a total of 1 year in prison (which included a period of time when he was in custody prior to being convicted). He was release in 2016, approximately 8 years ago.
24. In sentencing the applicant, the District Court was told by Counsel for the applicant of the applicant suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive disorder[34]. The District Court accepted the applicant suffered depression, originally occasioned by the closure of the airline where the applicant previously worked and exacerbated by his dispute with his neighbour. [35]
25. The maximum sentence for this type of offence was 14 years. It is evident from the sentencing remarks and the sentence imposed that the District Court determined this offence was not at the top end of the range for severity and that there were mitigating circumstances being the health issues referred to in the previous paragraph. That is not to diminish the extreme nature of the crime or in any way to excuse the applicant.
26. The applicant made reparations of approximately $14,000 to his neighbour, the victim of the assault. In this regard the victim had suffered substantial injuries as a result of being struck with a machete by the applicant. These events, including injuries suffered, are recorded in in the transcript of the sentencing hearing in the District Court.[36]
27. The parties did not draw to my attention any evidence that might suggest there was any physical confrontations with the applicant's neighbours after the applicant was released from prison or any further criminal offending after this time. There was no evidence to suggest any other conviction for serious crime.
28. Around the time of the offence, there had been ongoing disputes between the applicant, his wife and their neighbours. These disputes included proceedings in QCAT brought by the applicant's wife against the neighbour concerning allegations of racial vilification. Some of these allegations QCAT found to be made out on the evidence before it in a decision made 1 September 2015.[37] This provides some context but not an excuse for the applicant's crime.
29. Prior to his conviction, there were also disputes between the applicant, his wife and Queensland Police concerning allegations of misconduct by the Police. Exhibit B records part of the response from the Police.
30. Since his release from prison, the applicant has dealt with various medical conditions including suffering a heart attack in February 2022.[38] He also gave evidence that his wife had passed away. There is no medical evidence of any continuing depressive illness of the type identified to the District Court identified in the evidence before the Tribunal.
31. The applicant is now age 62. He has worked in the aviation industry in Australia and overseas since about 1980. His employment in the aviation industry overseas is recorded in his curriculum vitae.[39] As noted above, he has worked in Australia for a company called Corporate Air. There is no evidence that he has mis-conducted himself in any relevant way while working in the aviation industry.
32. The applicant has provided a number of references, two of which (relating to work in Australia) are included in the Tribunal Bundle at TB 240-1. These are dated 25 January 2022 and 20 February 2023. References concerning his work in the aviation industry overseas are included as part of Exhibit A at page 35 and following.
33. All these references speak in positive terms of the applicant, variously describing him as

(a) a person carrying out his duties "in a professional and safe manner" and who is "honest and hard-working";[40] > > (b) having "a positive attitude";[41] and > > (c) "a trusted member of the team maintaining Saab 340 and Metro 23 aircraft".[42]

34. As noted above, the applicant was issued with an ASIC following permission of the respondent in 2022.
35. In the respondent's reply submission, the respondent says of this matter:[43]

13. As noted in paragraph 72(1) the respondent's facts and contentions the respondent no longer holds the view that the applicant's character as shown by the 2015 conviction is an "isolated" event. The respondent submits that the 2015 conviction is an extreme event that demonstrates the applicant's character.

36. Consequently, adopting what was said in Ahmad,[44] the respondent submits "that the Tribunal cannot conclude that the applicant is not a threat to aviation transport and ... that the public interest in the security of the aviation transport must prevail over the applicant's individual difficulties.[45]
37. There is no evidence from his former employer, or those with whom he worked or came in contact with while working at any airport in the period 2021-2023 to suggest that the applicant committed any act at an airport or caused any interference or damage that put at risk the safe operation of the airport or the safety of any person at the airport at which he worked. Nor is there evidence the applicant did so earlier in his career.
38. There is evidence of intemperate communications with officers of the respondent concerning the present application. These communications demonstrate both frustration of the applicant in his dealings with the Department and the failure of the applicant to deal with requests made in connection with the decision-making process both respectfully and appropriately. Some of this conduct may be characterised as intimidation.
39. The applicant's poor conduct in dealing with officers of the Department should not be condoned.
40. However, on the evidence provided to me and in the absence of any direct evidence from witnesses in the Department, I am not satisfied this conduct of the applicant was illegal, threatened violence or gives rise to circumstances that might establish a risk the applicant might unlawfully interfere with aviation as that expression is used in s 10 of the Act.
41. Considering the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that the application should be refused. While the applicant engaged in serious criminal conduct for which he was convicted in 2015 and served a custodial sentence, his conduct while working in the aviation industry, particularly in the last 3 years, reflects a person who carries out his duties in a responsible and safe manner and who has been a trusted member of a team of people responsible for maintaining aircraft. On the material before me, his work in the aviation industry indicates a commitment to diligence and safety in performing various roles as a maintainer and operator of aircraft.
42. The communications with the Department, while inappropriate and unhelpful in assisting the Department to process his application, are not such to establish a risk of the type identified in s 10 of the Act or that the security of airports and people at airports would be at risk if the applicant were issued with an ASIC.
43. Further, in the absence of current medical evidence concerning the applicant's mental health, I am not persuaded there is any ongoing stress disorder or depression of the type referred to in the District Court proceedings which the applicant suffers. The evidence of current medical conditions to which I have referred above does not support a contrary conclusion. In these circumstances, the condition proposed by the respondent concerning obtaining a psychiatrist report does not seem necessary, particularly as directed towards mental health issues said to have arisen nearly 10 years ago or more.
44. The final matter to deal with concerns the return of the ASIC issued in 2022.
45. Clause 6.45 of the Regulations provides:

6.45 Return of red ASICs, grey ASICs, VICs and TACs that have expired etc. > > (1) A person commits an offence if: > > (a) the person is the holder of a red ASIC or a grey ASIC; and (b) the holder does not return the ASIC to the issuing body within 1 month after: > > ... > > (iv) the holder no longer has an operational need to enter the relevant secure area. > > Penalty: 10 penalty units

operational need means: > > (a) a requirement for frequent access to all or part of a secure area of an airport where persons are required to display an ASIC, for either of the following purposes: > > (i) the operation of the airport or an aircraft; > > (ii) the purpose of a person's occupation or business; or > > (b) a requirement under the Act, these Regulations or another instrument made under the Act to properly display a valid ASIC at all times; or

47. In my opinion, the operational need of the applicant in connection with the 2022 ASIC ceased upon his resignation from his employment with Corporate Air. As noted above, the resignation occurred on 16 February 2023. At that point in time, the applicant was obliged to return the ASIC within one month from his resignation.
48. The applicant said he did not return the ASIC he had been issued in 2022 because he was intending to commence employment with Qantas and was therefore not required to return the 2022 ASIC. He also says that, upon suffering a heart attack and following advice from his cardiologist, he withdrew from taking this new position and returned his 2022 ASIC to the issuing body, Veritas.
49. The view formed by the applicant as to his obligations was incorrect.
50. There is no evidence to suggest he had employment with Qantas or otherwise that he had a continuing operational need immediately upon resigning from Corporate Air. Consequently, the period in which the 2022 ASIC was to be returned was one month from 16 February 2023.
51. In making these observations, I note that the 2022 ASIC was returned by the applicant of his own volition. There is no suggestion that, between when he resigned and when he returned the 2022 ASIC, he failed to comply with any request in connection with its return. Nor is there any suggestion that the ASIC was improperly used to gain access to regulated areas of any airport.
52. In the circumstances, failure to return the 2022 ASIC within the one month does not lead me to conclude that the present application should be refused.

1. Having considered the matters in clause 6.29(5) and material submitted by the parties to the Tribunal, I have concluded that permission should be granted for the issue of an ASIC to the applicant and that the conditions imposed by the respondent should be removed.
2. Accordingly, I make the following decision:

The decision under review is varied by deleting the conditions concerning obtaining a psychiatrist report and providing a copy of that report to the respondent.

Mr James Millea (Appearing) - Security, Disputes and Operations Law Branch Legal

[8] TB 87 and following, particularly at parapraph 19 (TB 92)

[10] The equivalent requirement in the ART Act is s 23.

[13] [2014] AATA 96

[14] [2014] AATA 96 at [48]

[15] RS [39] referring to Travers and Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Services [2007] AATA 1797 (Travers) at [11]

[16] [2022] AATA 4779 at [55]

[17] [2016] AATA 311

[29] Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 22; 209 CLR 478; 76 ALJR 828

[31] [2016] AATA 311 at [75]- [81]

[34] TB 202 transcript line 11 and following

[35] TB 227 transcript line 23 following

[38] Exhibit A - Patient Health Summary page 21

[43] respondent's reply submissions paragraph 13

[45] respondent's reply submissions paragraph 26