• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Introduction 1 The Director General, Department of Transport, (the Director General) cancelled Mr Scotto's taxi driver's authority on 28 August 2001. That decision was affirmed after an internal review. Mr Scotto changed his name to James Bond but requested that the Tribunal refer to him by his former name. Jurisdiction 2 Pursuant to s 52(1) of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (PT Act) a person whose application has been refused or whose accreditation or authority has been varied, suspended or cancelled, may apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of that decision. Legislative provisions 3 Under s 33F of the PT Act the Director General may cancel any person's authority, "having regard to the purpose of authorisation". Section 33(3) sets out the purpose of an authority: (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. Issue 4 The issue which the Tribunal must determine is whether the Director General made the correct and preferable decision in cancelling Mr Scotto's licence. (See s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.) Grounds for cancellation 5 In the Statement of Reasons the Director-General relied on four matters justifying the cancellation of Mr Scotto's licence. Before dealing with each of those matters, two other matters arose for the Tribunal's consideration. 6 Records from the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) dated 26 September 2001, show that because of an accumulation of demerit points on his driver's licence, Mr Scotto was asked to elect whether he wished to continue driving on a good behaviour licence for 12 months or lose his licence for three months and be re-credited with his points at the end of that period. Mr Scotto gave evidence that he elected to lose his licence for three months. He also gave sworn evidence that he did not drive a taxi during that three month period. 7 Mr Scotto's evidence that he elected to lose his licence for three months is directly contradicted by documentation from the RTA which shows that Mr Scotto elected to be on a good behaviour licence for 12 months from 26 September 2001 to 26 September 2002. I find that the RTA records are correct and that Mr Scotto was either not telling the truth to the Tribunal or was mistaken in his belief that he elected to lose his licence for three months. Mr Scotto is not entitled to drive a taxi if he does not have a driver's licence or if he is on a good behaviour licence. Section 33(2)(c) of the Passenger Transport (Taxi-Cab) Regulation 2001 (the Regulation) states that an applicant for a taxi driver authority must hold a driver's licence. A driver's licence is defined in that section to exclude a conditional licence, such as a good behaviour licence. 8 Even if Mr Scotto was mistaken about which option he chose when he went to the RTA, there was direct and compelling evidence contradicting his claim that he did not drive a taxi from 26 September 2001 to 26 December 2001. Mr Mourad El Sayed, an accredited taxi operator, gave evidence by telephone that he had checked his records on the 27 May 2002 at the request of Giovanna Matheson, an operations officer with the Department of Transport. Mr El Sayed agreed that his records showed that Mr Scotto had driven three shifts during the period from 26 September 2001 to 26 December 2001. The dates he drove were 9 October 2001, 23 November 2001 and 10 December 2001. He also drove again on 12 February 2002. Mr El Sayed says he remembers that date because it is his birthday. 9 Mr Michael Catrupi, an accredited taxi operator, gave evidence by telephone that he had checked his records on 24 May 2002 at the request of Giovanna Matheson. The rosters for the period 1 September 2001 to 31 December 2001 were tendered in evidence. Mr Catrupi stated that Mr Scotto drove a taxi for him on all of the 18 occasions recorded in the roster. 10 Despite this evidence Mr Scotto maintained his version that he had not driven a taxi during the relevant period. There is compelling evidence to the contrary by two independent taxi operators who have contemporaneous records showing that Mr Scotto drove regularly during this period. I have no difficulty in preferring their evidence to that of Mr Scotto. In fact, this is one of those rare occasions when I am satisfied that Mr Scotto is not telling the truth to the Tribunal about this issue. 11 The second matter which was not alluded to in the Statement of Reasons, was the fact that Mr Scotto has been convicted of "obtain financial benefit by deception between 19 July 1988 and 8 September 1988". He was convicted and required to perform 250 hours of community service work. The circumstances of the offence were that in 1980 Mr Scotto and his former wife purchased a house for $50,000. They paid a deposit of $14,000 and the remaining $36,000 was funded through a joint mortgage. On 19 July 1988 Mr Scotto took out a second mortgage on the house without the knowledge or consent of his former wife. Mr Scotto forged his wife's signature. Mr Scotto became ill in 1990 and was unable to continue the repayments. At that time, Mrs Scotto realised what had happened. Mr Sotto admitted the offences and said he borrowed the money to pay gambling debts. 12 A letter dated 16 October 1996 from Wesley Financial Counselling Services, records that their staff first saw Mr Scotto in 1988 when he requested financial and personal counselling in relation to gambling activities. There was no up to date evidence before the Tribunal in relation to whether Mr Scotto is still gambling. 13 The four matters set out in the Statement of Reasons will be dealt with in turn below. 14 The first matter was that on the 23 September 1997 Mr Scotto solicited passengers, left the scene in contravention of a direction of an authorised officer and failed to notify his change of address. He was convicted of these matters in the Local Court on 8 December 1997. Mr Scotto explained these events by saying that there were no other taxis at the airport rank and that he was trying to assist passengers by asking where they were going. 15 Mr Scotto has been convicted of these offences and his explanations do not change the fact that he has acted in breach of legislative requirements. Nevertheless the matters are relatively minor and I have not taken them into account in coming to my conclusions. 16 The second matter was that on the 22 June 1999, Mr Scotto presented three cab-charge dockets to a service station in order to buy petrol. Mr Scotto's version of events was that another cab driver gave him the cab charge dockets because he needed the cash. When he was interviewed, Mr Scotto said the driver's name was Sam but he could not provide any other identifying information. Mr Scotto denied changing the amount on the docket. Mr Scotto was not charged with any offence in relation to this incident and repaid the total amount of $70.60. 17 There is not enough evidence to find that Mr Scotto has behaved in a fraudulent manner by presenting an altered cab charge docket. Consequently I have not taken this incident into account in determining this matter. 18 The third matter was a conviction in the Local Court on 12 November 1999 for failing to wear an approved network uniform. The circumstances of this incident were that Mr Scotto was issued with an infringement notice on 28 July 1999 for not wearing a uniform. When questioned by the officer Mr Scotto said in "I'm not working, I just dropped off my sister. Later he said "I'm not working my light is off." 19 This matter is relatively minor and I have not taken it into account in coming to my final conclusions. 20 The final matter was a conviction for on 4 April 2001 for failing to behave with civility towards passengers. The complaint was from two men who caught a taxi on 26 February 2000 from the airport to Darlinghurst. When the passengers asked where the taxi driver was going he said "What do you mean where are we going? You asked to go to Liverpool Street." The passenger then said that they asked to go to the other end of Liverpool Street. The driver then said "I've been driving for twenty-five years, I know where to go you arsehole." One of the passengers wrote a complaint letter which stated, in part, that: I was in the back seat and the driver kept turning his head to argue and scream abuse. Michael tried calmly to explain to him that he had taken us to the completely wrong end of Liverpool Street. The driver had completely lost control and was not watching the road, instead he kept turning around to yell abuse at me. . . His yelling, abusive manner and swearing were intolerable. Michael and I demanded that the driver stop and let us out. We offered him twelve dollars, the meter was about fourteen dollars, as he had taken us a long way out of our way . . He refused, holding our luggage as hostage for the full fare . . . The yelling and abuse continued, "I don't give a fuck about the money, I lose thousands every time I go to the casino!" At this stage the driver contacted the base and was instructed to take us to the police station. . . When we arrived at the police station, I went in and explained what had happened to Senior Constable Zietch. . . . when the police decided we were telling the truth (the driver) became very annoyed. 21 The passengers paid the full fare and called another taxi. While waiting outside for the second taxi to arrive, the driver drove off and yelled out "You just wait you fucking poofter! I'm gonna get you! I'm gonna fuck you up the arse you fucking poofter. You're dead." 22 When interviewed about this matter on 11 May 2001, Mr Scotto said that the passengers were "kissing and cuddling during the journey and it was distracting me." Mr Scotto agreed that he refused to give them their luggage because they would not pay the full fare. When asked if he said "I don't give a fuck about the money" Mr Scotto said "No, I did not use those words." Mr Scotto also denied abusing the passengers when he was driving away. 23 Mr Scott was prosecuted for failing to behave in an orderly manner and with civility and propriety towards a passenger. He defended the matter but was convicted and fined $400 and ordered to pay witnesses expenses of $455 and professional costs of $2750. Following the hearing it was alleged that Mr Scotto made the following statement to the complainants, "you won't be getting a cent out of me you fucking poofters." 24 In convicting Mr Scotto, the Local Court apparently accepted the passengers' version of events. I also accept the passengers' version of events based on all the evidence in the Department's file and the fact that Mr Scotto was not a credible witness. I also accept that Mr Scotto made the comment alleged outside the court room. Reasons and decision 25 The notions of being a "fit and proper person" and of "good repute" are distinct concepts which must both be satisfied before an authority can fulfil its purpose. ( Re T and Anor and the Director of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392; Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1 at 15; Caska v The Director General Department of Transport [2001] NSWSC 205.) 26 The meaning of "fit and proper" is dependent on the nature and purpose of the activities which the person will undertake. (Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380.) Chief Justice Mason said in Bond that: The question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgment. In that process the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision maker. So too is the weight, if any, to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration. 27 "Repute" is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary (Third Edition) to mean "estimation in the view of others; reputation." 28 Mr Scotto did not give truthful evidence to the Tribunal. He has been convicted of failing to behave in an orderly manner and with civility and propriety towards a passenger. He continued his tirade of abuse outside the court room. Mr Scotto has been convicted of "obtain financial benefit by deception" after forging his wife's signature on a legal document. In addition he drove a taxi during a period of three months when he did not have a driver's licence. On the basis of all the evidence I am satisfied that Mr Scotto is not a fit and proper person to drive a taxi. It is not necessary for me to determine whether he is a person of good repute. In those circumstances, the Director General made the correct and preferable decision in cancelling Mr Scotto's licence. Orders The Director General's decision to cancel Mr Scotto's (aka Mr Bond's) taxi driver authority is affirmed.