Mr Chooks Halal Chicken Pty Ltd v Primesafe (Review and Regulation) [2018] VCAT 1932 (10 December 2018)

1. In contrast, if PrimeSafe determines that an applicant, any associate of the applicant, and any nominated operator are fit and proper persons the licence application is determined by reference to s 17 of the Act.
2. Mr Taleb is an 'associate' of Mr Chooks as defined by s 16(3) of the Act. He is the company's director and secretary, and sole shareholder.[5] He is therefore an agent of the company, and has a relevant financial interest, relevant position and relevant power with respect to the company. He is also the nominated operator. As such, if Mr Taleb is not a fit and proper person the licence applications may be refused.
3. Although ss 16 and 18 the Act have not been judicially considered, the concept of a fit and proper person is well-established.
4. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 94 ALR 11 Toohey and Gaudron JJ said at [36]:

1. Mr Cadman on behalf of Mr Taleb submitted that a number of matters were in Mr Taleb's favour:
   • Mr Taleb's over twenty years of experience in the meat industry, his excellent and specialised knowledge of Halal butchery, and the lack of any public health complaints or issues of any kind from his history in the industry, including as a licensor and/or operator;
   • The nature of his offending, which comprises;
     • two incidents of exposure and indecent behaviour that are irrelevant to the activities for which he seeks a licence;
     • one incident of prosecution for relevant breaches of the Act in 2008. Mr Taleb's evidence regarding this, consistent with his evidence when interviewed by PrimeSafe at the time, is that this was a single incident based on a close family member seeking his assistance- a family member with whom he has not had contact since the incident in 2007. He is remorseful has realized the error of his ways and has learned from his mistake;
   • the age of his offending, including his relevant offending. The most recent was nine years ago and the offence under the Act over 10 years ago;
   • his full and frank admissions at the time of his offending, and his immediate pleas of guilt (on every occasion);
   • Mr Taleb's evidence as to the lack of intent to deceive in failing to disclose his prior convictions on his subsequent application forms, which evidence is supported by;
     • his granting authority for PrimeSafe to perform police and background checks on each occasion;
     • his stated assumption that PrimeSafe knew about his previous relevant offences, and his entirely reasonable statement that he did not think his indecency convictions relevant to his licence applications. He did not intend to deceive: thinking they are not relevant is not the same as lying. Now he knows they are relevant;
     • Mr Taleb's history of interactions with PrimeSafe, including with the same officers in 2007 and 2017-2018, his contacting PrimeSafe before purchasing the business the subject of the current application and his cooperation in assisting PrimeSafe where required;
   • his desire to improve his knowledge evidenced by the two Certificate IV courses taken - in process manufacturing and in food processing;
   • apart from complaints about odour and smoke from a barbeque there have been no public health complaints;
   • he has an unsophisticated understanding of events and he is a simple man, but these matters should not be held against him. While his evidence demonstrated a lack of understanding about the criminal processes, he nevertheless pleaded guilty, paid his debt, underwent treatment by a psychologist (after the 2010 conviction) and has since been of good behaviour;

(1990) 94 ALR 11

(1955) 93 CLR 127