The applicant submitted that the Registrar's decision should be set aside and that he should be granted a towtruck certificate. He relied upon the Registrar previously providing him with a certificate, despite knowing about his criminal history, and that he holds a dangerous goods licence which he submitted demonstrates that he is not a risk. He provided a number of character references from former employers and gave information to the Tribunal to explain and mitigate his offending.

The respondent sought for the Registrar's decision to be affirmed as the correct and preferable decision. The Registrar submitted that the Tribunal should, in determining whether the applicant is a fit and proper person, consider the context in which towtruck services are provided. This included that towtruck drivers are responsible for motorist's property and often attend in the aftermath of accidents where there may be potential conflict and they need to comply with police directions.

• The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted a towtruck certificate;
• Therefore, section 98F(1)(c) of the MV Act has not been met and the Tribunal cannot issue the applicant with a towtruck certificate;
• The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant's criminal offending is too serious and too recent, particularly the money laundering offence for which he is still on home detention. Further there is insufficient evidence that he can be entrusted to make sound decisions and that he would not make a decision for the benefit of himself to the detriment of others;
• In the Tribunal's view, the correct and preferable decision is to refuse the applicant's application for a towtruck certificate. The Tribunal therefore affirms the decision of the Registrar.

Administrative Review - Motor Vehicles Act 1959 - Review of a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles - Decline an application for a towtruck certificate - Fit and proper person

Motor Vehicles Act 1959 s 98F

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 8, 37, 39

The applicant appeared in person supported by Mr N Vaalele

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a)

1. This is the determination of an application made to the Tribunal on 17 March 2025[1] to review a decision of the Registrar on 17 March 2025 to refuse to issue a towtruck certificate to the applicant.
2. This proceeding is in the Tribunal's review jurisdiction. The Tribunal's task is to examine the decision of the original decision-maker, give appropriate weight to the original decision and to consider material before the original decision-maker and any new material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's role is to reach the correct and preferrable decision. The Tribunal's powers include to affirm, vary, or set aside the decision under review and either substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration.
3. Review proceedings are conducted with a minimum of formality. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself as it sees fit and must act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case without regard to legal technicalities and forms.
4. The main issue for determination in this case is whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a towtruck certificate.
5. Initially, the Registrar refused to issue the applicant his towtruck certificate on the basis that it was not satisfied he is a fit and proper person and on the basis it was not satisfied that the applicant is proficient in driving and operating a towtruck.[2] However, on internal review, the Registrar only relied on the applicant not being a fit and proper person to hold a towtruck certificate.[3] The Registrar submitted at hearing that it is no longer pursing the submission that the applicant is not proficient in driving and operating a towtruck. The Registrar relies on the applicant's criminal history to make a submission that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a towtruck certificate.
6. I have had regard to all the documents filed, including the Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 May 2025, email from the applicant, dated 6 June 2025, submissions from the applicant, undated and submissions from the respondent, dated 6 June 2025. I also had regard to the submissions and evidence provided at the hearing on 26 June 2025, and place weight on the respondent's decision, dated 17 March 2025.
7. I have also had regard to material filed after the hearing, including a letter from a Community Corrections Officer, undated, a Home Detention Release Order, dated 7 August 2023, various emails provided by the applicant and the respondent's further written submissions, dated 4 July 2025.
8. In relation to the issuing of a towtruck certificate, the Registrar must ensure that applicants meet the eligibility criteria prescribed under s 98F(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (MV Act). Section 98F(1) of the MV Act states:

98F-Entitlement to be granted towtruck certificates > > (1) Subject to this Act, an applicant is entitled to be granted a towtruck certificate if the applicant­ > > (a) is of or above the age of 18 years; and > > (b) is the holder of a driver's licence granted and in force under Part 3; and > > (c) is a fit and proper person to be granted a towtruck certificate; and

(d) has an adequate knowledge of the provisions of this Act relating to driving and operating the equipment of towtrucks; and

(e) is proficient in driving and operating the equipment of a towtruck of the kind specified by the Registrar.

1. Notably, if an applicant meets all of the criteria in s 98F(1), it appears that the Registrar must grant them a towtruck certificate.[4] On the other hand, if a person does not meet all of the criteria in s 98F(1), they are not entitled to be issued with a certificate and nor is the Registrar empowered with discretion to issue them with a certificate.[5]
2. The Registrar argues that the applicant does not meet s 98F(1)(c) of the MV Act as he is not a fit and proper person to be granted a towtruck certificate.
3. The MV Act does not define under what circumstances a person is deemed fit and proper. In my view, it is important that the term "fit and proper" in s 98F of the MV Act is interpreted having regard to the MV Act and regulations. It is also important to consider the term "fit and proper" in the context of a person performing towtruck services. In my view, the purpose of setting out specific criteria in s 98F of the MV Act (that includes a person being required to be at or over 18 years of age, to hold a licence, to have knowledge of the provisions of the MV Act, proficiency in driving and operation of towtrucks and that the person is a "fit and proper person") is to ensure that only competent people are provided a towtruck certificate and that public safety is ensured.
4. The Registrar says that is it important that the term "fit and proper" is considered in the context of performing towtruck services under the Accident Towing Roster Scheme.[6] In its decision, dated 17 March 2025, the Registrar said:[7]

"I am mindful that under this scheme, towtruck operators are responsible for motorist's property, including motor vehicles and any personal belongings in the vehicle, being exposed to emotional situations due to a motor vehicle accident and managing any potential conflict, conforming to the instructions of police officers or other emergency response personnel, transporting passengers of all ages and genders at any time of the day or night and handling payments on behalf of employees. > > It is therefore important that any person who is granted a TTC is of a good character to perform these duties and will have the best interests of the motorist in the care and control of their safety and motor vehicle at times of vulnerability due to an accident."

5. I agree with the Registrar's submissions regarding the approach to be taken to determining whether a person is a "fit and proper" person under s 98F of the MV Act. I would add that s 98F requires that I must be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted a towtruck certificate. If I am unsatisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person, then he cannot be issued a certificate under s 98F. A refusal to grant a towtruck certificate does not depend on me being satisfied that the applicant is not a fit and proper person. Rather, if I am not satisfied that he is a fit and proper person, he cannot be issued a towtruck certificate.
6. In relation to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a towtruck certificate, the Registrar's primary concerns relate to offences listed on the applicant's criminal history relating to:[8]

(a) Unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 17 years, for which the applicant was convicted on 28 March 2014 and sentenced to an 18 month good behaviour bond;[9]

(b) Traffic in a controlled drug - basic, for which the applicant was convicted on 16 December 2019 and sentenced to 1 year 10 months imprisonment (suspended);[10] and

(c) Money laundering and breach bond, for which the applicant was convicted on 23 April 2023 and sentenced to 2 years, 3 months and 23 days imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 months.[11] The applicant is still under sentence for this matter and is currently on home detention. His sentence expires on 15 August 2025.[12]

1. The applicant's explanation for the drug trafficking offence is that he was making a deal with his friend to sell him three capsules. The capsules were for personal use, but a friend of his asked for some. The applicant was selling a few to his friend when the police walked in. The applicant was honest to the police. The applicant claims he has not touched drugs or alcohol since this time.[13]
2. The applicant's explanation for the money laundering offence is that the applicant was taken advantage of and he is essentially innocent. The applicant believed that he was working for an individual, "Dennis" that was running a legitimate business. Dennis asked the applicant to open business bank accounts in his name which he believed to be legitimate.[14] The applicant plead guilty only on the basis of advice and does not believe he should have done so.
3. In relation to the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 17 years, the sentencing remarks of then Judge McIntyre set out the factual circumstances of that offending as follows:

(a) The applicant was aged eighteen at the time of the offending and met the complainant, who was fifteen, on Facebook. After some period, the relationship became sexual and continued for a four to five month period;[15]

(b) The applicant was sentenced on the basis that there was no pressure placed on the victim to have sex with applicant and there was no secrecy. Further, there was no grooming or predatory behaviour and there was no great disparity of age.[16] However, Judge McIntyre did note the seriousness of the offending.[17]

1. In relation to the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug, the sentencing remarks of Judge Soulio set out the factual circumstances of that offending as follows:

(a) Police entered a toilet block at 2am on Saturday 30 December 2017 and saw a young man hand the applicant some cash. The police searched the applicant and asked him if he had anything he should not, and the applicant admitted he did and produced several capsules he said were ecstasy. The applicant produced a cigarette lighter which had a false bottom which contained further capsules;[18]

(b) Police seized just under $400 in cash from the applicant;[19]

(c) Later that morning, the police searched a hotel room where the applicant had been staying with his partner. The police located three bags, two of which contained capsule ends, and the third a mixture of capsule ends and whole capsules;[20]

(d) Judge Soulio was prepared to sentence the applicant on the basis that the capsules in his possession were given to him that evening by his partner for personal use or to share with others, but that he agreed to sell two of the capsules for $50 to one of the men in the toilet block;[21]

(e) The applicant's telephone was seized by police and was found to contain messages which seemed to indicate that there had been previous drug transactions;[22]

(f) On the night of his arrest, the applicant sent a message to his partner which said "stash the shit outside. Do not reply";[23]

(g) Judge Soulio considered a report of Dr Young, psychologist, that was prepared in relation to earlier offending that said the applicant was initially diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder, and then in his mid-teens, he was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome and then autistic disorder. Dr Young said the applicant has difficulties with anxieties and verbal skills which means that he is socially naive and vulnerable with poor impulse control. Dr Young said in relation to earlier offending, the applicant did not have a mental impairment defence because he knew what he was doing was wrong but that the applicant's appreciation of the magnitude of the wrongfulness of his behaviour may be diminished by his disability;[24]

(h) The applicant said he had ceased drug use and the results of three urine tests confirmed that to be the case;[25]

(i) Judge Soulio noted the seriousness of the offending, the harm that drug offences can cause to the community and the need to deter and punish the applicant;[26]

(j) Judge Soulio considered that the applicant had potential and noted positive character references, efforts to obtain employment and cessation of drug use. Judge Soulio asked that the applicant not breach the terms of his bond and that his lawyer go through the conditions of the bond with him, explain what is required and the consequences of a breach.[27]

1. In relation to the knowingly engage in money laundering offence, the sentencing remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, set out the factual circumstances of that offending as follows:

(a) The victim, Red Bus Services Pty Ltd, arranged to purchase a new bus from lveco Trucks Australia Pty Ltd at an agreed amount of $503,846.20;[28]

(b) The invoice sent by lveco Trucks was intercepted and the bank details on the invoice were altered to match an account in the name of Catchbite Pty Ltd;[29]

(c) The applicant was the sole director and shareholder of Catchbite Pty Ltd;[30]

(d) Several transfers and payments were then made from the account in Catchbite's name until the credit in the account was exhausted;[31]

(e) The applicant received a personal benefit in the amount of $50,000.00;[32]

(f) The applicant stated that he had acted on the instruction of a person named "Dennis" who he had met on the messaging app "Kik", and was not aware of the deception;[33]

(g) The applicant had been involved in other transactions with Dennis which, while not the subject of any charge, were described by Judge Slattery to amount to conduct which was "plainly enough a money laundering operation" and the applicant had been warned by friends, family and banks against such conduct;[34]

(h) The applicant was prepared to overlook a number of obvious matters in order to get the money which comprised benefit that he received from the transaction.[35]

1. The applicant was sentenced on the basis that he ought to have known that the money received into the account was tainted property.[36] The applicant told police that members of his family and friends questioned him about why he was opening business accounts. He accepted that he was warned by a number of people, including the bank that fraudulent activity was or could be taking place, however, he continued to act.[37]
2. It is noted that the applicant's counsel emphasised the applicant's own vulnerability and naivety in sentencing, and the Court considered a report by psychiatrist Professor Young regarding the applicant's autism spectrum disorder diagnosis and his susceptibility to influence.[38] On consideration of these submissions, as well as the facts of the offending, Judge Slattery commented:[39]

"I am satisfied that, even if you were not aware that you were involved in a rather elaborate and sophisticated scam operated by someone else and, even taking into account the diagnosis of your disorder, you were aware of the significant benefit that you were to obtain from this transaction, your desire to obtain that money and your decision to enter into that transaction as a result. Even if your ability to perceive social situations has been severely impacted, you were in a position to make a decision in that background to enter into the transaction knowing the information supplied to you by your family, banks and others that the transactions of this nature are or may be fraudulent."

3. In my view, in determining whether the applicant is a "fit and proper" person, it is also relevant that the applicant has been found guilty of numerous traffic offences between 2013 and 2019, the most serious of which being a conviction for drive in a reckless or dangerous manner on 13 August 2015 for which he was fined $500 and was disqualified for 12 months,[40] and drive under disqualification or suspension on 30 August 2016 for which the applicant received a suspended sentence of imprisonment after breaching his bond.[41] I also note the following matters listed on the applicant's driver licence report:[42]

(a) 23 October 2020 - use head lights on high-beam when not permitted to do so - one demerit point;

(b) 11 April 2020 - exceed speed limit by 20 kph or more but less than 30 kph - five demerit points;

(c) 3 March 2019 - drive in right lane on multi laned road when not permitted - zero demerit points;

(d) 2 November 2018 - U-turn at traffic lights - one demerit point;

(e) 3 July 2015 - exceed default speed in built up area by less than 10 kph - two demerit points;

(f) 9 June 2015 - disobey no U-turn sign (no traffic lights) at intersection - two demerit points;

(g) 29 October 2014 - drive in right lane on multi laned road when not permitted - two demerit points.

1. There is also reference to various licence disqualification and cancellations.[43]
2. Section 39(1)(b) of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act) permits me to adopt, in my discretion, as I consider it appropriate, any findings, decision or judgment of a court or tribunal (insofar as may be relevant to the proceedings before the Tribunal). In my view, the decisions of the criminal courts are relevant and proven beyond reasonable doubt. I adopt those findings. Section 8 of the SACAT Act refers to the Tribunal resolving matters quickly, keeping costs down for the parties and acting with little technicality. This also suggests that the Tribunal may adopt findings already made by a Court insofar as they are relevant to the Tribunal's proceedings.
3. I put high weight on the findings of the criminal court judgments noting that findings were made beyond reasonable doubt and that the applicant was legally represented.
4. I acknowledge the applicant's view that he did not understand he was engaging in money laundering and he should not have plead guilty. However, in my view, it is inappropriate for me to look behind the findings of the criminal courts. If the applicant has concern with these findings, he has appropriate appeal mechanisms.
5. In considering whether the applicant is a fit and proper person, in the applicant's favour, I acknowledge and place weight on the following:

(a) The applicant has not had any driving offences since 2020;[44]

(b) The applicant states that he has not touched drugs or alcohol since he was found trafficking drugs by police.[45] This submission of the applicant is given further weight by the production of clear urine screens from 2023.[46] Having said that, the applicant has been incarcerated for some period and is still serving his home detention sentence that requires him to remain drug free so this reduces the weight to be given to this factor. Further, he has not produced any recent clean urine screens;

(c) The applicant has provided a number of work references to support his application.

• The Operations Supervisor from Raw Recruitment states that the applicant worked at Raw Recruitment for six months in 2020 and was reliable and willing to pick up available shifts even on short notice;[47]
• The Manager at Central Towing, on 18 March 2019,[48] indicates that Central Towing is aware of the applicant's previous convictions, he has had no incidents and he believes that the applicant is trying to turn his life around;
• The Operations Manager at Eagle Constructions Pty Ltd, on 14 September 2023 states that the applicant had been working there for three months originally as a labour hire truck driver and then as an employee and the applicant has been punctual, respectful and willing to follow instructions with safety at the fore front of all activities performed;[49]
• An employee in Operations at James Contract Supplies Pty Ltd, on 16 June 2023 states that the applicant was employed for one month and he was reliable and punctual and performed duties in a prompt and courteous manner;[50]
• The Operations Manager at KTI Transport company notes that there were no complaints from any customers and the applicant attended every day.[51] The applicant worked there for a period in 2024;
• The Operations Manager at Smith Haulage, on 14 February 2025 states the applicant did his job and there were no complaints from clients. Having said that, the applicant worked there for a very short period in June 2024;[52]
• The owner at Ward Tipper, on 14 February 2025 states that the applicant is currently working with him and has been employed with him for two months and there are not concerns about him as an employee.[53]

Although I do place weight on the positive work references, I also note that the applicant has not worked for any of those organisations for a lengthy period so I do place less weight on those references. The applicant told me at the hearing that he is not currently working but he has some appointments with some employers shortly to discuss some opportunities.

(d) The applicant has a dangerous goods licence[54] and has not had issue with that licence.[55] Further, according to the applicant's driver licence report, he has a full multi combination and learner bike licence.[56] I also note he has a heavy vehicle driver's licence that is due to expire on 30 September 2026;[57]

(e) According to Dr Young, the applicant's appreciation of the magnitude of the wrongfulness of his behaviour may be diminished by his disability;

(f) The applicant believes he should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that he has changed his life around.[58] His personal circumstances include that he is motivated to remain crime free now that he has a partner, two children and bills to pay. His partner does not work and the family are struggling financially.[59] The applicant acknowledges that he has an extensive criminal history, but says he is trying to better himself. He has had "wrong friends, bad peer pressure" but he no longer has those friends. He now thinks twice before doing things, and asks people if something does not sound right. He is trying to be a better person for himself and a good role model for his family.[60] The applicant complains that he left a job in the hope that his towtruck certificate would be provided. When the certificate was not provided, he became unemployed and this caused "a lot of financial issues with rent and bills".[61] The applicant says that he loved being a towtruck driver and being able to help people.[62] Although I do place some weight on the applicant's wishes and desires, in my view, they are very much a secondary consideration and public safety must be given paramountcy.

1. I also place weight on the following factors that suggest that the applicant may not be a fit and proper person to hold a towtruck certificate:

(a) The applicant has a criminal history that includes convictions for drug trafficking in 2019, money laundering in 2023 and unlawful sexual intercourse in 2014. These matters are all serious and the money laundering matter has resulted in imprisonment. All of these offences would cause concern to the public. All of these offences raise concern about the applicant having interactions with members of the public that may be in a vulnerable situation;

(b) The applicant's criminal history is recent. The applicant is currently on home detention. His sentence expires on 15 August 2025.[63] Although I acknowledge the applicant is trying to improve his life, the conditions of his home detention are strict and include that the applicant report, be of good behaviour and commit no violation of the law, not have in his possession weapons, not consume alcohol and remain drug free. It is unclear whether the applicant will continue on his positive trajectory when he is not subject to these conditions;

(c) The money laundering matter involved dishonesty. In my view, dishonesty is directly relevant to the question of fitness and propriety. This is of particular concern given the applicant's denials that he essentially did not do anything wrong. Towtruck drivers are entrusted with the custody and control of property belonging to members of the community, often at times in which they are at their most vulnerable. It is an environment in which members of the public may be vulnerable to dishonest or improper conduct;[64]

(d) I am concerned about the view expressed by Professor Young, psychologist, in the money laundering matter that the applicant's desperation for work was a contributing factor for the offending and that the applicant was in significant financial debt with a young child at the time of the money laundering offence.[65] The applicant could be said to be in similar circumstances currently, namely, without his desired employment and in financial difficulty. Professor Young said that the applicant's motivation to earn money and his autism spectrum disorder make him susceptible to predators and committing further offences.[66] I am concerned by Professor Young's assessment that the applicant is socially naive and vulnerable with poor impulse control. Whilst this may not the fault of the applicant, a person susceptible to committing further offences, with poor impulse control should not be granted access to the public's belongings particularly in circumstances whereby members of the public may be vulnerable and emotional having just been involved in a car accident. I am also concerned about Judge Soulio's finding in relation to the money laundering offence that the applicant was prepared to overlook a number of obvious matters in order to get the money;

(e) It is also relevant that the applicant has been found guilty of numerous traffic offences between 2013 and 2019;

(f) In my view, the applicant lacks insight in relation to his offending history. A lack of insight suggests that the applicant might be more likely to engage in the same conduct in the future because he does not understand that what he did was wrong. The following examples suggest a lack of insight:

• In relation to the drug trafficking matter, at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant claimed that it was a "one off' despite the Judge sentencing the applicant referring to messages on his phone that suggested previous occurrences;
• In relation to an offence for making a U-turn at traffic lights without U-turn permitted, the applicant claims that he was out of fuel and had to turn and, further, he believed that he was allowed to complete a U-turn;[67]
• In relation to an offence for drive in right lane on multi-lane road when not permitted, the applicant claims that he was going to turn right, but the police officer was "nasty" and fined him even though he was going to turn right;[68]
• In relation to the money laundering offence, the applicant claims he was taken advantage of, he was told by his psychologist to not plead guilty, and he only plead guilty because his lawyer gave him bad advice.[69] At the hearing, he maintained that he was taken advantage of and should not have plead guilty.

Having said that, I do acknowledge that the applicant has remained crime free for some period despite being released on home detention on 11 August 2023[70] and he has not committed a driving offence for some years. Further, the applicant has filed several emails indicating that he is attempting to work with the police to report further money laundering operations. I do not place any adverse inference on the submission that the applicant may be in breach of his home detention conditions by contacting Dennis.[71] Much of the evidence suggests that Dennis has been attempting to contact the applicant and not the applicant contacting Dennis. In fact, the evidence appears to demonstrate that the applicant is attempting to report Dennis to the police. I reject the submission that the applicant's post-conviction conduct in attempting to assist in locating a co-offender should be given little weight.[72] I do give it weight. I also acknowledge at the hearing the applicant informed me he does accept his criminal history and does take responsibility. The applicant informed me he acknowledges and accepts his drug trafficking offence but not the money laundering matter. I accept that the applicant has some insight in relation to his offending history but not full insight;

(f) I also am concerned that the applicant is a person that struggles to heed warnings. For example, despite family, friends and the bank warning him of the money laundering operation, the applicant persisted. Further, despite Judge Soulio ensuring that applicant's lawyer explained the conditions of his bond, the applicant breached those conditions by the money laundering offence. Judge Slattery's findings in relation to the money laundering offence make it clear that the applicant was told by family, banks and others that the transactions may be fraudulent. Despite that, he continued to act in the scheme and acted to benefit himself. I agree with the submission of the Registrar that "When considering fitness and propriety in the context of the statutory scheme discussed above, the public is entitled to expect that a towtruck driver will not act to benefit themselves, without regard to the broader consequences of their actions on other persons. The applicant's criminal history is inconsistent with that expectation."[73] As noted by Judge Slattery money laundering offences cause great detriment to the community.[74] If the applicant were to act in a similar way in the future, it could cause great harm.

1. In the material, there is reference to the Owner of Central Towing, where the applicant used to work for about three months in 2023, providing information including that:[75]

(a) The applicant came from All Suburbs Towing and they "were glad to gid rid of him";

(b) RAA said that they did not want the applicant doing any of their work anymore;

(c) The applicant was at Central Towing for about three months and kept having accidents;

(d) The Owner of Central Towing "had to let" the applicant "go."

1. The applicant denied the information provided by the owner of Central Towing and believes that he mixed him up with another employee. The applicant has supplied some evidence that there were three employees called Sean that worked at the relevant time. The applicant admits there were two accidents he was involved in at Regent Logistics but says that these accidents were not his fault. The applicant says that the first accident was caused by another driver when he changed lanes, she allegedly increased her speed and hit the back of his trailer. The applicant says the second accident occurred in the context whereby a drunk driver pulled out onto the road not giving him enough time to brake and causing the applicant to hit him.[76] Further, the applicant provided screen shots of conversations from All Suburbs Towing whereby he asked for a job, but they indicated that he lived too far away. The applicant has also supplied an email from the Director of All Suburbs Towing, dated 28 April 2025, that confirms he was never employed by them.
2. For the purpose of this decision, given the applicant's strong denials of impropriety and limited evidence about the alleged incidents at Central Towing, and the fact that it appears the owner of Central Towing made an error in believing that the applicant worked at All Suburbs Towing and there were three employees with the same first name, I place only very limited weight on allegations by the applicant's previous employer, Central Towing.
3. I do note that there is another reference that is somewhat similar to the reference from the owner of Central Towing. The Operations Supervisor at Regent Logistics notes there were a number of incident reports for damages to vehicle and equipment.[77] Again, due to the scarcity of information regarding these incidents, I put very limited weight on these allegations.
4. The applicant argued that it is relevant that he has been previously given a towtruck certificate despite the respondent being aware of his criminal history.[78] I note that on 23 March 2020 the Registrar determined to "look favourably" on the applicant's application for a towtruck certificate and subject to passing a towtruck proficiency assessment, determined he would be granted a certificate subject to certain conditions.[79] It appears on 23 March 2020, a temporary towtruck certificate was issued to the applicant until 22 June 2020. On 18 June 2020, the temporary towtruck certificate was extended to 28 July 2020. On 14 September 2023, the temporary towtruck certificate was extended to 21 December 2023.[80] It is clear that as of September 2023, the Registrar knew about the entirety of the applicant's criminal offending history, including the money laundering matter, and still issued the temporary towtruck certificate.[81] At the hearing, Ms Small submitted that the relevant decision-maker from 2023 is no longer employed at the Registrar of Motor Vehicle's office so that particular decision-maker's views have not been able to be obtained. Ms Small acknowledged that consistency in Government decision-making should occur and, in this case, it has not. Ms Small frankly submitted that the decision in 2023 was the incorrect decision. In my view, I need to consider whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted a towtruck certificate now and it is not relevant to my decision whether or not he was granted a certificate in 2023. Having said that, it is unfortunate that the Registrar knew of the entirety of his criminal history in 2023 and issued him with a certificate and now says that he should not be issued with a certificate. Ms Small very appropriately acknowledged that the Registrar was not consistent and this should not have occurred.
5. The applicant submitted that he has his dangerous goods licence[82] which proves that he is not a risk.[83] According to the licence, it is valid from 29 June 2024 until 28 June 2027.[84] I also note that the applicant has a Heavy Vehicle Driver's Licence that expires on 30 September 2026.[85] I agree with the submissions of the respondent that the dangerous goods licensing scheme is distinguishable from the scheme relating to towtruck certificates.[86] In particular, a person is not required to be a fit and proper person to obtain a dangerous good licence.[87]
6. The applicant informed me at the Tribunal hearing that he will not offend again because he will speak to his partner and the police. Although I place weight on this, it is insufficient evidence for me to determine he is a fit and proper person particularly in the context of the money laundering offence whereby the applicant was warned by the bank and family and friends and still continued to act.
7. On balance, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted a towtruck certificate. Therefore, s 98F(1)(c) of the MV Act has not been met and I cannot issue the applicant with a towtruck certificate. I am concerned that his criminal offending is too serious and too recent, particularly the money laundering offence for which he is still on home detention. Further, there is insufficient evidence that he can be entrusted to make sound decisions and that he would not make a decision for the benefit of himself to the detriment of others.
8. In my view, the correct and preferrable decision is to refuse the applicant's application for a towtruck certificate. I therefore affirm the decision of the Registrar.
9. I acknowledge that the applicant will be disappointed with my decision. This decision is not about punishing the applicant and I accept he has taken some positive steps, including remaining drug free and not committing a motor vehicle offence for some years. The applicant may wish to reapply to the Registrar for his towtruck certificate after some years with no criminal offending, demonstrating improved insight into his criminal history and having psychological evidence that suggests he has good strategies to remain crime free in the community. It would also be beneficial to have a positive reference from an employer that he has worked with for some period, preferably twelve months or more.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] Application to the Tribunal, lodged 17 March 2025.

[2] Submissions from the respondent, dated 6 June 2025, paragraph 4; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, pages 8-9.

[3] Submissions from the respondent, dated 6 June 2025, paragraph 4; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, pages 15-19.

[4] Submissions from the respondent, dated 6 June 2025, paragraph 14; Section 98F(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959.

[5] Submissions from the respondent, dated 6 June 2025, paragraph 14.

[6] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 15.

[7] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 18.

[8] Submissions from the respondent, dated 6 June 2025, paragraph 2.

[9] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 5.

[10] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 5.

[11] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 5.

[12] Letter from Community Corrections Officer, undated.

[13] Submission of the applicant, undated, page 1; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025; page 12.

[14] Submission of the applicant, undated, page 1; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025; page 12.

[15] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 13. Sentencing Remarks of Judge McIntyre, dated 1 April 2014.

[16] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 14. Sentencing Remarks of Judge McIntyre, dated 1 April 2014.

[17] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 15. Sentencing Remarks of Judge McIntyre, dated 1 April 2014.

[18] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 9. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio, dated 18 December 2019.

[19] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 9. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio, dated 18 December 2019.

[20] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 9. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio, dated 18 December 2019.

[21] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 9. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio, dated 18 December 2019.

[22] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 9. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio, dated 18 December 2019.

[23] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 9. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio, dated 18 December 2019.

[24] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 10. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio, dated 18 December 2019.

[25] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 11. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio, dated 18 December 2019.

[26] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 11. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio, dated 18 December 2019.

[27] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 12. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio, dated 18 December 2019.

[28] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 1. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 1.

[29] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 1. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 2.

[30] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 1. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 2.

[31] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 1. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 2.

[32] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 1. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 2.

[33] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 1. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 2.

[34] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 1. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 3.

[35] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 1. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 5.

[36] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 1. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 3.

[37] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 1. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 3.

[38] Submissions from the respondent dated 6 June 2025, paragraph 36.

[39] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 7. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 7.

[40] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 7.

[41] Submissions from the respondent, dated 6 June 2025, paragraph 30; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 7.

[42] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 4.

[43] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, pages 4 and 5.

[44] Submission of the applicant, undated, page 1; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, pages 4 and 12.

[45] Submission of the applicant, undated, page 1; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 12.

[46] Letter from Community Corrections Officer, undated.

[47] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 33.

[48] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 34.

[49] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 59.

[50] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 60.

[51] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 80.

[52] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 83.

[53] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 84.

[54] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 10.

[55] Submission of the applicant, undated page 2; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 13.

[56] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 4.

[57] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 74.

[58] Submission of the applicant, undated, page 2; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 13.

[59] Application to the Tribunal, lodged 17 March 2025.

[60] Submission of the applicant, undated, page 2; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 13.

[61] Application to the Tribunal, lodged 17 March 2025.

[62] Submission of the applicant, undated, page 2; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 13.

[63] Letter from Community Corrections Officer, undated.

[64] Submissions from the respondent, dated 6 June 2025, paragraph 32.

[65] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 5. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 5.

[66] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 6. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery, dated 27 April 2023, page 6.

[67] Submission of the applicant, undated, page 1; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 12.

[68] Submission of the applicant, undated, page 1; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 12.

[69] Submission of the applicant, undated, page 1; Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 12.

[70] Letter from Community Corrections Officer, undated.

[71] Respondent's further submissions, dated 4 July 2025, paragraph 21.

[72] Respondent's further submissions, dated 4 July 2025, paragraph 22.

[73] Submissions from the respondent, dated 6 June 2025, paragraph 36.

[74] Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 12 March 2025, page 7. Sentencing Remarks of Judge Slattery dated 27 April 2023, page 7.

[75] Section 35 Book of Documents dated 22 April 2025, page 78.

[76] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 20125, page 91.

[77] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 82.

[78] Email from the applicant, dated 6 June 2025.

[79] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 36.

[80] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, pages 63, 64 and 74.

[81] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 88.

[82] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 10.

[83] Application to the Tribunal, lodged 17 March 2025.

[84] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 10.

[85] Section 35 Book of Documents, dated 22 April 2025, page 11.

[86] Respondent's further submissions, dated 4 July 2025, paragraph 10.

[87] Respondent's further submissions, dated 4 July 2025, paragraph 11.