1. On 25 November 2014, VCAT received the application in this proceeding whereby Mr David Henry sought review of the cancellation of his private security license by Victoria Police by decision dated 18 November 2014 under the Private Security Act 2014 (the Act).
2. On the understanding that Victoria Police did not oppose the making of a stay order, on 28 November 2014, VCAT stayed the licence cancellation, without holding a hearing, and listed the proceeding for a directions hearing on 15 December 2014. Mr Henry continued to work. Unexpectedly, at the 15 December 2014 directions hearing, Victoria Police learned Mr Henry was still working and made an application that the stay be lifted.
3. After hearing from both parties I varied the stay order, as set out in the above orders and separately made directions, listing the proceeding for final hearing on 23 March 2015. This allowed Mr Henry to continue to work as a solo security guard patrolling premises by car and to work as a member of a team in crowd control. It did not allow him to work in the field of private investigation, for which he was previously licensed but had not worked in.
4. Victoria Police did not oppose Mr Henry working in crowd control, until VCAT finally decided the proceeding, but opposed him working in the other fields. Mr Henry did not seek to work in private investigation until VCAT finally decided the proceeding.
5. Victoria Police requested these written reasons, which are an edited version of oral reasons given on 15 December 2014. The editing includes setting out some of the evidence before me, which was not necessary in giving oral reasons, with all present having recently heard it.

1. Having heard submissions from both parties in what has unexpectedly turned into the first substantive stay application in this process, in my view the correct and preferable decision is to vary the stay to, in effect, allow Mr Henry to continue to work in the security industry, but not as a private investigator.
2. Many issues raised by Victoria Police in both its suspension letter and in its cancellation letter of 18 November 2014 are very concerning. This Tribunal will be very concerned about them when this matter reaches full hearing.
3. However, at this point in time, in my view, a stay should continue to operate in this proceeding. I refer to the principles set out in Bell v Liquor Licensing Victoria [2000] VCAT 214.
4. First, will not continuing the stay render the final hearing nugatory (of no or of reduced value)?

1. Cancelling Mr Henry's license before he has the opportunity to have VCAT review Victoria Police's decision would cause him and his family serious financial hardship. Therefore, to an extent lifting the stay would render the final hearing nugatory.
2. Second, is there is a serious question to be tried in this application for review?
3. In my view there is. Ms King for Victoria Police advised that at the final hearing a significant number of members of the Victoria Police will give evidence about their concerns about Mr Henry and that their level of concern is such that, many years later for some of them, they will be giving evidence from their recollection, not from a reconstruction. Accepting that, on the limited information available to me today there is a serious issue to be tried. For one thing, Mr Henry should have the opportunity to put his position that he made serious errors as a young man, has reformed, but Victoria Police object to him being licenced given that now old history.
4. Third, will Mr Henry suffer prejudice if the stay ends? I bear in mind Macnamara VP's words in AZD v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2009] VCAT 977 at [15]:

... generally there should be a predilection favour of not, if you will, putting people out of business until they have had the opportunity to prosecute their review applications.

1. Given I accept Mr Henry and his family would suffer financial hardship, I accept they would suffer prejudice.
2. Fourth, is it in the community or public interest that the stay continues?
3. I give preference to the interests of it to the community with respect to opportunities to engage in one's livelihood and the presumption of innocence. Even though there are many concerning events in Mr Henry's history, the information before me does not cause me alarm in terms of the issue of protection of the public, until the final hearing in late March 2015 and any time after that if VCAT reserves its decision.
4. Many of the incidents that concern Victoria Police happened from 1987 to 2000. Mr Henry was convicted of serious offences in 2000. However, many years have passed since that; longer than the 10 years during which Mr Henry would have been prohibited from obtaining a licence under the Act because of the convictions. Further incidents are recorded in the following years, none of which led to charges or convictions. A 2012 report of domestic violence was withdrawn by Mr Henry's wife, who attended this directions hearing to support him. One matter led to charges in 2014, which did not proceed. Mr Henry said had they proceeded, he would have contested them.
5. Ms King raised the issue that members of the public could be alarmed if they found out Mr Henry had been granted a stay. While that might be the case, similar to the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Director of Public Transport v XFJ [2011] VSCA 302 [at 32], the issue of what reasonable members of the public would think is more the question. In my view, there is not sufficient information before me to conclude a reasonable person would be alarmed.
6. The charges brought against Mr Henry in 2014 did not result in conviction. He is presumed innocent until convicted. So while those issues are of concern and may remain relevant in the final hearing of this matter they have not been sufficient to persuade me that in these circumstances there is a risk to the public such that the stay should end.
7. Fifth, concerning the time until VCAT will decide the application, the final hearing in this proceeding is scheduled about three months from now.
8. That is a significant period of time in terms of Mr Henry not being able to earn an income or at least a majority of his income. It is a relatively short time in terms of any risk he presents. It is a much shorter time than Mr Henry has already worked in a licensed capacity. I accept Mr Henry's evidence that he has not hidden any events from the licensing branch as they have unfolded. I accept his evidence that neither has he hidden his past from his employer, who is aware of it.
9. It seems highly unlikely that Mr Henry will risk having any negative involvement with law enforcement for the next 12 weeks. He has every incentive to keep his nose clean. If he does not, Victoria Police may return to VCAT and apply again for the stay to be lifted.