Should the applicant's driver authority be cancelled?
25It was submitted that the applicant is a very simple and honest person. He supports his wife and four children and a parent. They are currently renting a house for $290 per week and they have no savings. The cancellation of his driving authority would create severe financial hardship for him and his family and was unreasonable and excessive. However, possible hardship to the applicant, or his family, cannot be taken into account in determining the correct and preferable decision: Lal v Director-General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74, [47]. Similarly, the purpose of a driver authority is to have the regulator (that is, the respondent, or on review the Tribunal) "attest" that a driver is of "good repute", is "fit and proper" to be a taxi driver, and has "sufficient responsibility and aptitude" to drive taxis. It is not about giving a driver "another go".
26In Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSW ADT 68 at [17] the Tribunal's Deputy President set out several factors which should be considered when determining a person's fitness and suitability to hold a taxi authority:
17 Taking into account the terms of the legislation and the case law interpreting similar provisions, there are a number of factors that need to be taken into account in determining a person's suitability and fitness to obtain a taxi authority. These factors include:
- the nature, seriousness and frequency of any criminal offences for which the applicant has been arrested or convicted;
- the nature, seriousness and frequency of any complaints made against the applicant;
- the applicant's driving record;
- the applicant's reputation in the community; and
- the likelihood that the applicant will re-offend, be the subject of further complaints or commit further traffic offences.
27It was submitted that the applicant had conceded that he had acted wrongly in filling out the dockets incorrectly, but he claimed that trips had taken place. He had said he was not aware of the identity of the person he transported and just accepted the "contract job" to collect "Mr Perico" for which he was paid a set fee of $60. It was submitted that there was no deception by the applicant. It was submitted that he had been duped by the taxi owner. It was submitted that he obtained no financial advantage.
28While the applicant knew the owner's father lived where he collected the taxi, and that the dockets contained his name, and that he had transported the owner's family members including taking the owner's father to hospital it is implausible that he did not know that he was the owner's father, as he contends. If those were the only trips involving the owner's father, that provided no explanation for the many other trips claimed in respect of trips transporting the owner's father according to the dockets. The applicant's evidence, in summary, was that trips claimed occurred, although not at the time recorded in the dockets. It is implausible that, even if the applicant were reconstructing the information to be completed in the dockets a week or two later that he would not recall the most basic of information such as who he was transporting in these regular jobs, namely "Mr Perico" or the other beneficiary.
29I do not accept that the applicant could so carelessly have completed the dockets that he overlooked the fact that in respect of several journeys no driver was logged into the taxi during those trip times; that he was transporting other passengers; the owner was driving the other beneficiary; at the same time he was carrying out metered jobs; or that there was no driver logged into the taxi until after the start time of the alleged journey.
30Further, if he were reconstructing the information, it is implausible that he could recollect the precise fare after a week or two. On his evidence, it appears, he was unconcerned about the accuracy of that information, or indeed any of the information on the dockets, because the business arrangement he had with the taxi owner was that he would receive $60 per trip, irrespective of the meter reading. I do not accept that he obtained no financial benefit.
31At best, the applicant's completion of the dockets was with reckless indifference to the truth of the information he was submitting. I do not accept he was duped, but find he was a willing participant in a scheme to obtain money from the TTSS, a scheme which relies on the honesty of the driver and operator of the taxi.
32Honesty is central to any consideration of whether someone is a fit and proper person with the responsibility and aptitude to drive a public passenger service vehicle in accordance with the statutory conditions, the law and custom. There is a community expectation that taxi drivers will not only provide safe, reliable and clean public passenger services but the community also expects honesty from taxi drivers. The applicant's conduct in relation to 29 dockets in the TTSS scheme is not in accordance with community expectations of honesty from an authorised driver of a taxi.
33I accept that the applicant may have a satisfactory driving record and may be of good repute. I also accept that there is a degree of contrition in that he has admitted his wrongdoing and has had minimal use of the TTSS scheme since these matters have come to light.
34However, in Sara v Director-General, Department of Transport [2003] NSWADT 157, the cancellation of the licence of a taxi driver who had been knowingly involved in a Cabcharge fraud perpetrated by one of his regular passengers was affirmed despite his 39-year driving record with no complaints against him. In that case, it was an isolated incident for a relatively short period of time. In the present matter, there were multiple instances, albeit on the information before me, only for a relatively short period.
35After weighing the relevant considerations, and in light of all the evidence, I am unable to attest to the applicant's suitability and fitness to hold a taxi driver's authority at the present time.
36The decision under review is therefore affirmed.
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: 28 March 2014