Keane v Roads and Maritime Services

Applicable legislation

1. The basic provision dealing with the issuance of authorities under division 5 is s 33, which provides as follows: 33 Authorities (1) RMS may, by the issue of authorities under this Division, authorise persons to drive taxi-cabs, subject to and in accordance with this Division. A person authorised under this Division is referred to in this Part as an "authorised taxi-cab driver". (2) A person who drives a taxi-cab is guilty of an offence unless the person is an authorised taxi-cab driver. Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units. (3) The purpose of an authority under this Division is to attest: (a) that the authorised person is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a taxi-cab, and (b) that the authorised person is considered to have sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive a taxi-cab: (i) in accordance with the conditions under which the taxi-cab service concerned is operated, and (ii) in accordance with law and custom. (4) The regulations may create categories or grades of authorities. (5) Without limitation, the regulations may provide that subsection (2) does not apply in specified circumstances, including, for example, when a taxi-cab is being driven to a place to have it repaired or serviced.
2. The issue in this case is thus whether the tribunal can attest that the applicant "is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a taxicab".

The evidence

1. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence but relied on the s 58 documents (exhibit R1).The applicant gave oral evidence, but as he had not filed a witness statement his testimony tended to be discursive and to devolve into submissions, to which the respondent very properly objected.
2. In his evidence in chief the applicant said that for the past two years he has been working three or four shifts a week as a console operator at three Caltex service stations owned by Kel Campbell Pty Ltd in the Bomaderry and Shoalhaven Heads areas. He serves customers all day, collects money and closes the sites at night.
3. He has had no convictions, apart from a parking ticket, since the assault cases in 2011. None of his offences at any time have arisen out of his driving a taxicab, and there has never been a complaint against him by a taxi passenger. As regards the domestic episode in 2011, he believes that he did not go about removing the unwanted person in the correct way, as he had lacked the appropriate skills. Since then he has completed courses on life skills and cognitive behaviour. He has learned to stop and think before acting. He has undergone a healing and rehabilitation process and recognizes that the way in which the incident developed was his fault.
4. The references that he had submitted (exhibit A1) had been tendered at the previous hearing (before Huntsman JM). Mr Wozniak had criticized them as being out of date, but he said he had not been aware that he had to update them. A recent reference dated 14 April 2015 was from the president and secretary of the RSL Sussex Inlet Bowling Club of which he had been a member since 2011. He had won two championships there. These days he concentrates on work and keeps to himself. As he lives in a public housing area in Nowra, he goes to Sussex Inlet at weekends where he stays at his uncle's cabin and spends his time bowling and fishing. He appreciates being a member of the bowling club, where he is surrounded by good people, such as veterans and retirees. They have a calming influence on him.
5. The Positive Lifestyles course was 10-week program organized by the Salvation Army and taught by counsellors. He had also had sixteen weeks of individual counselling, which had changed his whole way of thinking. He learned to write down notes about matters that had upset him, and would discuss them with the counsellor. He also completed two weeks of a four-week residential program on Positive Lifestyles, which was a learning experience, but the manager thought that as the other members were for the most part alcoholics and drug addicts, he did not need to be there and would be better served by outside counselling, which was duly arranged. He still partakes of alcoholic beverages, but limits himself to a couple of beers at the bowling green, as he has a 45-minute drive home from the club and consequently cannot drink any more.
6. The applicant referred to the report by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) titled Investigation into allegations that staff from a number of local councils and other public authorities accepted benefits from suppliers and that staff from two local councils facilitated payment of false invoices from suppliers (c 2013). The applicant had given evidence before the ICAC public inquiry in 2013, part of which was reproduced in the report (exhibit R1, pp 85 -89). The inquiry, and related inquiries, had resulted from emails that the applicant had sent. His role had led to his being the target of death threats. The report states that the applicant "was, in the Commission's view, a credible and truthful witness".
7. It was put to the applicant in cross-examination that he had not disclosed all his convictions in the 10-year period preceding his original application on 3 March 2010 as required by the form (exhibit R1, pp 25 - 26). He replied that he had believed he had declared everything as the others lay outside the 10-year period. He agreed that he had not disclosed the 12-month suspended sentences he had received, but said that as they had been suspended on condition of community service, he had thought that the community service orders represented the actual disposition of the cases. He had not intended to mislead.
8. In his evidence by way of re-examination, the applicant said that he had believed he had declared all relevant convictions. The ones that he had omitted were within a month or two of the 10-year cut-off, and he had been working purely from memory, not having a copy of his criminal history. He was not sure of the exact dates and would have declared the other matters if he had been in possession of a copy of his criminal history. He had not declared the larceny charge as he had thought it was part of the obtaining money by deception charges. He had thought he was being careful and had given authority for disclosure and collection of particulars of his criminal history.

Respondent's submissions

1. The respondent presented oral submissions, partly by way of opening and partly at the conclusion of the evidence. It was argued that the applicant's authority had been suspended because of the serious nature of the charges of which he had been convicted. He had been sent a warning letter shortly after obtaining his authority, on 2 June 2010 (exhibit R1, p 68) but was nevertheless convicted after receiving it. The Administrative Decisions Tribunal had affirmed the decision to cancel. He had now reapplied for an authority.
2. In Re T and the Director of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392, the Supreme Court had said that evidence of criminal convictions is evidence of bad repute. Consequently, it is for the applicant to show by evidence that he is of good repute. In Director General, Transport New South Wales v AIC [2011] NSWADTAP 65, the tribunal's appeal panel had said that the use of the word "attest" in s 33(3) of the Act required the tribunal to make a positive finding: "The Parliament, in using this word, seeks, we consider, to emphasise the idea that the conferral of an authority involves a declaration of public trust" (at [12]). Good repute is a matter of what others think about the applicant, even though they know about his convictions: Loye v Director General, Department of Transport [2000] NSWADT 145, [24] - [28], [42].
3. The reference from the RSL bowling club at Sussex Inlet disclosed no awareness of the applicant's convictions. The Salvation Army reference dated 17 September 2012 was dated and the courses he had undertaken were of little relevance. Two of the other references were also dated and some did not mention his convictions or background.
4. The psychologist's report (exhibit R1, pp 146 ff) was nine months old and dealt mainly with the question of safe driving, which was not an issue in the case. The report also recommends conditions, including that for six months he be subject to random alcohol and drug tests, but the suggested imposition of conditions showed that the psychologist must have had misgivings about the applicant's future conduct and the necessity for imposing conditions demonstrated that he was not a fit and proper person: Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] NSWSC 297 (CA).
5. The favourable comments in the ICAC report carried little weight as the commission was not assessing the applicant's repute. Consequently, there was evidence of bad repute, constituted by his criminal history, but little evidence of good repute. The tribunal's task is to examine the applicant's record, his suspended sentences and bonds. The applicant was warned early on to ensure that his conduct remained within the law, but nevertheless committed serious offences and was the subject of an intensive correctional order. His references were "undercooked" and insufficient to enable him to be positively assessed as being of good repute.

Consideration

1. The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from decisions of the respondent to cancel or refuse a driver authority, pursuant to s 29 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and s 52 of the Passenger Transport Act 1990. The tribunal's function in relation to such appeals is laid down in s 29 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997: 63 Determination of administrative review by Tribunal (1) In determining an application for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following: (a) any relevant factual material, (b) any applicable written or unwritten law. (2) For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision. (3) In determining an application for the administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide: (a) to affirm the administratively reviewable decision, or (b) to vary the administratively reviewable decision, or (c) to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the administratively reviewable decision it set aside, or (d) to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.
2. It is well established that in considering an application for review, the tribunal is not restricted to a consideration of the material that was before the respondent, but may have regard to any relevant material before it at the time of the review: Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 46 FLR 409.
3. The applicable standard of proof is that laid down in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 and there is no onus of proof as that term is generally understood: Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 at [28] - [30], [34].
4. The respondent's case under s 33(3)(a) of the Act was based primarily on the applicant's not being a person "of good repute", and the authority under that provision can be granted only if it is possible to "attest" that the person is of good repute and in all other respects fit and proper to drive a taxicab. As the appeal panel noted in Director General, Transport New South Wales v AIC [2011] NSWADTAP 65, [12], "The Parliament, in using this word, seeks, we consider, to emphasise the idea that the conferral of an authority involves a declaration of public trust. While this is true of all licensing, the word gives special emphasis to it in the present context". The appeal panel went on to explain that the concepts of "good repute" and "fit and proper" character involve different considerations: "The former concept goes to the way in which a person is regarded by others in the community (fairly or unfairly), while the latter concept goes to an individual's intrinsic characteristics, whether they are known to others or not" (at [27]). Taking it a little further, Waddell J in Re T and the Director of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392 at 393 said: "A person's reputation, in fact and in law, is to be found in the estimate of his moral character entertained by some specific group of people, such as those who live in the neighbourhood of his residence, those who work with him or those with whom he associates in his occupation or profession".
5. Further, his Honour continued, evidence of conviction for a criminal offence is admissible as evidence, indeed most cogent evidence, of bad reputation. Such convictions are the raw material upon which bad reputation is built. They have taken place in open court and are matters of public knowledge. They are acted on by people generally as the best guide to his reputation and standing: Loye v Director General, Department of Transport [2000] NSWADT 145, [25].
6. A history of convictions is not prima facie evidence of bad repute. It does, however, create a presumption that the person has, among those who know of that history, a bad reputation. It places the onus on the person to establish his or her good reputation: id., at [27] - [29]. The difference may be a subtle one, but it is to be given effect to. Whether community members know about the less savoury aspects of the person's past is relevant: "Whether the person's criminal history is known in the community will be a factor in assessing what weight to give to the evidence of repute": id., at [31]. It does not, however, appear to be conclusive.
7. Evidence of a person's repute comes from people who can say what a "specific group of people" think of the person. A person may hold a position in the community from which it is reasonable to infer that the person is well regarded: at [32].
8. Between 1988 and 2008 the applicant committed, and was found guilty of, multiple offences of violence (but no sexual offences), traffic violation and dishonesty. He served no prison sentences but was fined, placed on bonds or directed to perform community service. The respondent pointed out that in his initial application for an authority dated 30 April 2010 he had not declared all the convictions he had incurred over the preceding ten years. The applicant had, however, disclosed most of his main convictions, including more serious ones, in general terms. He explained the omission of some matters on the basis that he had been working from memory and without a copy of his criminal history. He did not know what the word "larceny" meant but thought it was part of the charges for obtaining money or goods by deception (the larceny charge was dismissed). Two of the charges he had omitted because he thought they fell outside the 10-year period and had not realized that the relevant date was the court date, not the charge date (a mistake that is sometimes made even by lawyers), which was considerably earlier. He had not intended to deceive and if he had been in possession of a criminal history such as exhibit R2, he would have given full particulars.
9. He had in my view given enough particulars, including of the more serious offences, to trigger a Crimtac or other database search, and he had given full authorization for the disclosure and collection of information about his criminal offences. It is therefore unlikely that his omissions were intended to mislead. A Crimtac search was in fact undertaken, but for unclear reasons it did not bring up the relevant data. The error was not discovered until after the taxi driver authorization had been issued to the applicant, and while it was allowed to remain in force, the respondent wrote a warning letter to him about the possible consequences of any further offences on his part.
10. No further adverse events occurred until the domestic conflict on 13 December 2011 that led to the applicant's conviction on 2 October 2012 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault and his being made the subject of two separate intensive correction orders totalling 12 months. He did not report the charges to the respondent at the time, his explanation being that he was in such turmoil over the episode and the loss of his belongings, (rented) house and money, and the loss of contact with his daughter, that he completely overlooked it. His authority was cancelled on 24 December 2012 on the grounds of his convictions and failure to report the December 2011 charges.
11. The applicant maintains that although he pleaded guilty as part of a plea arrangement, he was not in fact guilty, or at least not to the extent claimed. No doubt he would have preferred to enter an Alford plea (North Carolina v Alford (1970) 400 US 25), which seeks to accommodate the realities of plea-bargaining, but that option is not available in New South Wales.
12. The general rule is that where the exercise of jurisdiction by a tribunal depends on conviction for an offence (as in the case of criminal deportation), the conviction cannot be challenged before the tribunal, other than in exceptional circumstances: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ali (2000) 62 ALD 673, 684; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Gungor (1982) 4 ALD 575; 42 ALR 209.
13. On the other hand, "where the exercise of the power is not founded on a criminal conviction, then even if the conviction be relevant, a challenge may be made to the essential facts on which it was based": Saffron v FCT (No.2) (1991) 102 ALR 19, 22. In this case the exercise of jurisdiction is not based on the conviction itself but on an application for review of a decision by the respondent.
14. The applicant's injuries, loss of consciousness and state of dishevelled déshabillé when the police found him lend some credence to his account, at least to the latter part of it. His stab wound, while consistent with his account, is also consistent with Michelle's. It may, however, show that the interaction on that evening was not entirely one-sided. A significant and unusual circumstance is the undisputed fact that at no time was he given the opportunity to make a statement, possibly, as was said above, because he had been conveyed directly to hospital and the matter was overlooked. The matter might have ended somewhat differently if his version of events had been heard.
15. Nevertheless, while it may be appropriate to take his description of the circumstances into account, the fact of his conviction on a serious charge, as well as his other convictions, must, in light of the authorities, be taken to have had an influence on his "repute". It therefore falls to him, as the respondent submitted, to adduce evidence of good repute. To that end he did not call oral evidence but tendered certificates from several rehabilitation and other courses, together with a number of references (exhibit A1).
16. One from the president and secretary of the RSL Sussex Inlet Bowling Club dated 14 April 2015 states that the applicant has been a member of the club for a number of years and "has proven to be a respectable person and his character is everything that is to be desired". He had also displayed great sportsmanship and won the club's singles championship.
17. A letter from a senior caseworker with the Shoalhaven Bridge Program dated 7 May 2013 notes the applicant's admission to the Watershed rehabilitation course and his participation in 16 individual counselling sessions. He had been "polite, punctual and participated well". The personnel officer at Ison & Co. Pty Ltd, a timber and building materials supplier, reported on 15 May 2013 that the applicant had been employed since October 2012 as a casual sales assistant and had proved to be "honest and reliable, he was always prepared to come to work on short notice…. He has a positive attitude towards his work and a good rapport with fellow workers". The manager of Kel Campbell Pty Ltd, which operates a chain of Caltex service stations, wrote on 17 April 2015 that the applicant had been employed as a customer service attendant since 2 September 2015 [sic], proving to be a reliable and trustworthy employee, was good with customers and gets on well with other staff members. The manager considered him to be a valuable member of the team and would have no hesitation in recommending him for employment. Mr & Mrs R Thomas of Shoalhaven Heads in a reference apparently dated May 2013 stated that they were aware that the applicant had "made some unfortunate choices during his life but we are quite confident that he has grown from these challenges and has turned his life around". They believed that he would perform his duties as a taxi driver in a proper manner, showing courtesy and respect to all of his passengers.
18. In a reference dated 17 May 2013, Ms Kelly Spence, a single mother of three children living next door to the applicant, wrote that he was an honest, reliable and helpful neighbour. She was aware of the offences of which he had been convicted but did not think they reflected his character. He was always ready to assist her whenever she needed it and was very good with her children. On occasion he had babysat for her: "I trust him wholeheartedly with my house and my children". Ms Patricia Willis wrote on 14 March 2013 that she had known the applicant all his life, giving a favourable account of his antecedents and his activities over the years. "I recently experienced Michael's compassion at a social event with a group of senior ladies. He was helpful to us all and assisted during an embarrassing situation". Ms Willis was aware of his "current issues", which she found completely out of character. "I know he is remorseful and is taking positive steps to address the problems he has encountered". A letter from the applicant's parents dated 10 May 2013 supports his description of the circumstances surrounding the domestic violence incident and notes that he "deeply regrets what happened and has suffered deep penalties. He was stabbed and beaten, lost his home, car and belongings. He also lost contact with his daughter".
19. Mr Peter Ratay, a former employer of the applicant, wrote on 10 January 2013 that the applicant had been driving his company's taxis for over twelve months and had shown himself to be reliable and honest. A letter from Ms Courtney Armstrong dated 11 January 2013 stated that the writer had known the applicant for three years as a taxi driver on the Central Coast and had used his services on a regular weekly basis. She had always found him to be honest, courteous and extremely reliable. "I have always felt safe and comfortable in his cab and have recommended him to others on numerous occasions". Mr Glen Willis, managing director of St George Cranes of Hurstville, stated that he had known the applicant for over forty years "through the highs and lows of his life". He had never known him to be more settled and suited to a career than when he has been driving cabs. His friendly and helpful nature was a definite asset in any service industry. Mr Willis was aware of his convictions and did not think that those offences represented "the person I know…. I would however draw attention to the fact that these were personal issues unrelated to the way Michael interacts with the general public". Mr Craig Adams's reference dated 9 November 2012 stated that he had known the applicant both personally and professionally for over thirty years and had been helped by him several times when he was in need. They had been active together in the Terrigal Trojan Rugby Union Club and the applicant had devoted hundreds of hours ensuring that the organization was able to field junior and senior teams in the local competition. He was also a patrolling member of the Terrigal Surf Life Saving Club and took part in many Heart Foundation door knocks. He gives generously to local charitable organizations, but the loss of his taxi authority has hampered him severely in that respect. He understands the seriousness of the offence and its potential implications and has expressed to Mr Adams his sincere regret at his actions. The process has been in itself a dramatic lesson that will stay with him for ever (exhibit R1, pp 58-61).
20. The applicant also submitted certificates from the Salvation Army's Positive Lifestyle Program, the Nowra Community Corrections offender induction program and the Australian Training Solutions responsible service of alcohol and responsible gambling services programs.
21. Relying on Loye, the respondent submitted that for these purposes references are valueless unless they show an awareness of the applicant's offences. Further, the references in this case merited little weight as they were largely dated 2012 and 2013 and therefore out of date. But Loye states only that whether the person's criminal history is known to the community is a factor going to the weight to be given to the evidence of repute (at [31]). In any event, seven of the references provided by the applicant do show that the authors were aware of his convictions, whereas in Loye, the tribunal stressed the complete absence of any evidence that the reputation of the applicant in that case was despite knowledge of his criminal history (at [44]).
22. Most of the applicant's references do date from 2012 or 2013, but there is no evidence that anything untoward has occurred in the meantime that would be likely to cause the referees to change their opinion of the applicant. The references were prepared for essentially the same purpose as the current hearing, and two of them, including the important reference from the applicant's current employer, Kel Campbell Pty Ltd, are dated 2015.
23. The last-mentioned reference is particularly significant as it relates to the applicant's current employment. It shows that he has been entrusted with a position of responsibility involving continual customer relations and the handling of substantial amounts of money and merchandise in the service stations, as well as closing the businesses for the night. Also important is Ms Armstrong's reference, coming as it does from a regular weekly user of his taxi service. She speaks highly of him and says she has always felt safe and comfortable in his cab, and has recommended him to others on numerous occasions. As a woman alone in a cab with the driver, particularly late at night, may be in a somewhat vulnerable position if the driver behaves improperly, that is an important consideration with relevance to the applicant's repute and to the maintenance of confidence in taxi services.
24. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] NSWSC 297, on which the respondent also relied, the Court of Appeal when dismissing an appeal by a doctor noted that there was nothing to suggest that the doctor had become a changed person during the four years since the last of the incidents, and the nature of his defence precluded any admission of guilt or expression of contrition. In the present case there is abundant evidence of contrition over his former record of lawbreaking and many indications that he has made strenuous efforts at self-improvement and coping with stressful or challenging situations. While he does dispute the account of the domestic violence incident set out in the fact sheet, which was based on Michelle's evidence, he does accept that he behaved very badly on that occasion and did use physical force against Michelle and Jade (exhibit R2, p 148). He attributes his conduct to his lack of skills in handling difficult situations and has undertaken a sustained program of rehabilitation in which he has learned to take responsibility for his actions, stop blaming others and develop anger management skills.
25. It should also be noted that none of his offences arose out of his driving of a taxi or had any connection with it. There are no sex offences. The ICAC report describes him as a "credible and truthful witness". That report, triggered by whistleblowing on the applicant's part at some risk to himself, exposed a network of large-scale corruption in local government. Although the report refers to the applicant only as "Mr X", his identity must have been more widely known, as he became the target of death threats over the role he had played. The report is thus positive evidence of good repute.
26. The RMS officer who performed the internal review dated 1 February 2013 concluded, "I am satisfied Mr Keane is a person of good repute" (exhibit R1, p 116). In her decision on the applicant's first review application on 20 May 2013, Huntsman JM noted that the applicant had made efforts, indicated that he should be commended and encouraged him to keep trying. She pointed out that at the conclusion of his sentence period he could consider reapplying, but the sentence period had at that time only just expired and further time should be allowed to pass. That was over two years ago. Further time has been allowed to pass and the applicant's conduct has presented no cause for concern.
27. The applicant has supplied a clinical report dated 5 August 2014 by John Littleton, a consulting psychologist. Mr Littleton wrote that the applicant "presented as amiable, engaging, open and there were no signs of substance or alcohol abuse at the time of the interview…. He currently does not have an anger problem and his mental health status is reasonable…. In my professional opinion Mr Keane is capable and can safely return to driving a taxi again and presents as a minimal risk to the public". He suggested that if the applicant committed another offence within two years, his authorization should be terminated permanently and that for six months he be tested for alcohol and drugs on a random basis. In my view that report is more relevant to the question of whether the applicant is a fit and proper person and to the issue of good repute. It is discussed below.
28. Notwithstanding his earlier poor record and the serious domestic violence episode in December 2011, the evidence shows that the applicant has fully rehabilitated himself. He is employed in a position of trust and responsibility and enjoys the confidence and respect of those with whom he works and associates. I am satisfied that the tribunal is in a position to attest to his being considered a person of good repute, and I so find.
29. The respondent argued the case largely on the basis of lack of good repute, but did not abandon the "fit and proper" ground. The question of fitness and propriety is to be assessed in the context of the nature and purpose of the activities that the person is seeking to undertake: Sodiki v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 145, [38]. The question before the tribunal is thus whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to drive a taxicab. As the appeal panel explained in AIC, the concepts of "good repute" and "fit and proper" character involve different considerations. "The former concept goes to the way in which a person is regarded by others in the community (fairly or unfairly), while the latter concept goes to an individual's intrinsic characteristics, whether they are known to others or not" (at [27]).
30. Most of the evidence considered above in relation to good repute is relevant to the question of fitness and propriety, although in a slightly different way, reflecting the different foci of the two factors. In addition, however, account must be taken of the clinical psychologist's report.
31. The respondent argued that the report should be given no weight for several reasons. First, that it was not relevant because its recommendations related to driving, and the applicant's driving skills were not an issue. But while it does refer to his fitness to return to driving, it also reports on matters of more general relevance, such as any tendency to anger or substance abuse. Next, it is said that the report is out of date. As it is less than a year old, that contention does not take matters much further. Finally, the respondent argued that by suggesting conditions on which a new authority should be issued, the psychologist was implicitly saying that he could not attest to the applicant's fitness and propriety to drive a taxi.
32. In Litchfield, the Court of Appeal was concerned with the case of a doctor who had been suspended from practice because of sexual impropriety with women patients. The medical tribunal had decided to restore his registration subject to conditions including that the doctor submit to psychiatric assessment. The court thought that the necessity for imposing such conditions demonstrated that the appellant was unfit to practice. In the present case the conditions suggested by Mr Littleton do represent a qualification of his conclusion that the applicant was fully able to return to taxi driving. Nevertheless, the remainder of the evidence provides sufficient basis for the tribunal to be able to attest that he is fit and proper within the meaning of s.33(3)(a) of the Act, and I so find.
33. The decision under review is set aside. I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 April 2023