Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2015-02-10

A taxi driver with a 20-year history of multiple driving offences and licence suspensions was refused renewal of his accreditation and banned from reapplying for 12 months. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding that the driver's pattern of offending—including committing new offences after being warned by the regulator—showed a blatant disregard for the law and public safety. The Tribunal also rejected the driver's argument that the ban should have started earlier, ruling that he needed a meaningful period of actually driving (legally) to prove he had improved before being allowed to drive passengers professionally again.

The applicant has been an accredited taxi driver on and off over the course of almost 20 years. Since 1997, his driver licence was suspended, in total, for about 3.5 years. His driver accreditation was suspended, revoked or its issue delayed by a show cause process for over nine years.
In particular, the applicant's driver accreditation to drive a commercial passenger vehicle was suspended or held off by the show cause process during the following periods:

(b) 6 September 2000 - 24 January 2007 (7 years and 4 months);

(d) 24 January 2013 - 13 April 2012 (approximately 2.5 months);

(e) 24 January 2013 - 17 July 2013 (approximately 6 months) ; and

(f) expired on 17 July 2014 - now (approximately 3 months).

The applicant's driver licence was suspended during these periods:

(a) 2 June 1998 - 1 September 1998 (3 months, demerit point suspension);

(b) 14 August 2000 - 13 October 2000 (2 months, for careless driving, fail to stop at stop sign or line and leave scene of accident);

(d) 11 April 2002 - 10 April 2004 (2 years, failure to remain at police station for a breath test);

(e) 15 December 2009 - 14 March 2010 (3 months, demerit points accumulation);

(f) 23 June 2010 - 22 July 2010 (1 month, for drive whilst authorisation suspended);

(g) 13 September 2013 - 12 March 2014 (6 month demerit point suspension);

(h) 18 March 2014 - 17 May 2014 (2 months for two counts of driving whilst suspended); and

(i) 10 April 2014 - 21 May 2014 (1.5 months for driving whilst suspended).

It is fair to say that the applicant has a long and consistent history of driving offences.
The last two suspensions of the applicant's driver licence resulted in a suspension until 21 May 2014. His driver accreditation was automatically suspended pursuant to section 169EA of the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 and expired during the period of suspension of his driver licence.
On 17 July 2014, the applicant applied for re-accreditation. The decision which is the subject of this review was made on 26 September 2014. The decision was to refuse to renew the applicant's driver accreditation because of the following reasons:

(a) in light of Applicant's consistent pattern of poor behaviour, including driving history and non-compliance, the most recent 'category 3' offences and TIN ..., the Respondent was not satisfied that the Applicant would provide the service in manner consistent with the public care objective;

(b) it was of particular concern the Applicant incurred further offences and one TIN despite being warned in 2012, and most recently in 2013 that his conduct would be monitored and considered at his next renewal; and

(c) the Applicant continued to offend and display poor driving behaviour; which demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law, the regulator and his own legal obligations.

As part of the decision the respondent imposed a disqualification period until 21 May 2015. This period of disqualification represented a 12 month period from when the applicant's driver licence was reinstated. This period was considered to be appropriate to provide the applicant with the opportunity to demonstrate improved driving behaviour and his willingness and ability to comply with the law and road safety rules.
At the hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the delay between the date upon which the applicant applied for re-accreditation and the date upon which the decision was made should be taken into account. It was further submitted that the period of disqualification should run from 18 March 2014, being the commencement date of suspension of the applicant's driver licence instead of 21 May 2014, which was the date upon which suspension of his driver licence ended. Given that the period of 12 months disqualification represents a period during which the applicant would be able to demonstrate an improved driving record, which would lend weight to his re-accreditation, it would appear illogical to modify that period to include a period during which he was disqualified from driving a motor vehicle. Any delay is of no practical consequence.
If the applicant is to demonstrate that the public care objective is satisfied, a meaningful period of driving a motor vehicle 'without accreditation' would seem to be an appropriate means of such demonstration.
The Tribunal considers that a period of 12 months is appropriate.
No real challenge was made to that part of the decision of the respondent refusing to re-accredit the applicant. The thrust of the applicant's case was challenging the period of disqualification.
For the reasons above, the Tribunal considers that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision of the respondent.

Hassan v Taxi Services Commission (Review and Regulation) [2015] VCAT 145 (10 February 2015)

Outcomeappellant

Disposition:

The decision of the respondent made on 26 September 2014 is affirmed.

Hassan v Taxi Services Commission

At a glance

Result

Key principles

Issues before the court

Cited legislation

Plain English Summary

Judgment (21 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

Hassan v Taxi Services Commission (Review and Regulation) [2015] VCAT 145 (10 February 2015)

AI Analysis