(a) 27 June 2009 - exceeding the speed limit between 10 and 19 kilometres per hour ­ two demerit points;

(b) 19 December 2009 ­ exceeding the speed limit between 10 and 19 kilometres per hour ­ four demerit points;

(c) 2 February 2011 ­ exceeding the speed limit between 20 and 29 kilometres per hour ­ three demerit points;

(d) 10 April 2011 ­ driving a motor vehicle using a hand held mobile phone ­ three demerit points.

1. On 22 September 2011 the applicant surrendered his driver's licence for three months and he was disqualified from driving for that period of time.
2. As a cleaner, the applicant was required to drive a motor vehicle to attend the cleaning sites with all of the necessary cleaning equipment. As a consequence of not being able to drive, the applicant ceased his cleaning work.
3. On or about 20 December 2011 and two days before expiry of the disqualification period referred to in 10) above, the applicant drove a motor vehicle without any authority to drive on a road.
4. On or about 20 December 2011 the police apprehended the applicant and asked the applicant for his driver's licence.
5. In responding to the request referred to in 13) above, the applicant produced a Government of Punjab Transport Department driver's licence bearing the name Ramandeep Sandhu.
6. On 22 December 2011 the three months' disqualification period terminated.
7. On 24 December 2011 the applicant was charged with driving without a valid driver's licence, and without authority to drive, and a second offence of using a forged or altered a driver's licence.

32 The applicant asserted that he and his wife had been, and continue to be, financially dependant upon his brother and sister­in­law as he cannot obtain any new cleaning work (because he does not have a clear National Police Certificate) and is unable to earn as a taxi driver (because his T extension is currently cancelled subject to this review).

33 In the course of giving his evidence in chief, the applicant informed the Tribunal that he entered a plea of guilty and was convicted on both charges on 24 February 2012.

34 The National Police Certificate provided to the Tribunal as document 13 of the respondent's s 24 bundle of documents notes that in respect of using a forged or altered motor vehicle driver's licence the applicant was fined $1,000, and in respect of the driving with no authority to drive, the applicant fined $500. In addition, the applicant was disqualified from driving for nine months.

35 In answer to the Tribunal's questions, the applicant conceded the circumstances of the traffic infringements, although in relation to one infringement ­ driving a motor vehicle using a hand held mobile phone ­ he stated to the Tribunal that he was not actually using the mobile phone, just holding the same. Notwithstanding that, he did not challenge that infringement.

36 In answer to the Tribunal's questions, the applicant said that soon after his disqualification from driving in September 2011 he and his family left Perth and went to India for 'about two months' for his brother's wedding. In the applicant's letter to the respondent dated 12 December 2012 in support of an internal review of the respondent's decision, at page 2 he states:

Taking into account the aforesaid circumstances [being the fact that he is the sole bread earner in the family], I was compelled [to] drive a motor vehicle without a Driver's License [sic] (Since my license had already been surrendered before WA Police). On the Ill­Advice of a friend who arranged a forged overseas license [sic] for me, I started using the said forged license [sic] under an impression that, I would be able to dodge the authorities and carry on my job without any troubles[.] ...

37 In support of the applicant's application filed 17 January 2013, the applicant attached a letter written by his wife, Harpreet Kaur, in which she states:

As ill luck would have it, my husband accepted an ill advice of a friend who arranged an overseas forged license [sic] and he started driving his car on that license [sic] to continue his business of cleaning and for that only mode of transport required to carry cleaning equipment's [sic] to distantly located sites was a car.

...

38 These statements are the subject of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the applicant's statement of issues, facts and contentions. The respondent took issue with these statements. The respondent, in its statement of issues, facts and contentions, states that the applicant has shown blatant disregard for the law by driving whilst disqualified from driving and has:

... taken the unusual step of obtaining a forged driver's licence calculated to deceive police and avoid detection. That level of premeditation is unusual for this kind of offence. The [Magistrates Court] has looked upon it as serious and that is reflected by the penalty, $1000. The maximum penalty for the offence is $1600 and given that the Applicant was a first offender and appears to have pleaded at the earliest opportunity the fine can be said to be at the upper end of the scale.

39 The applicant conceded in cross­examination by the respondent's representative that whilst in India he paid the equivalent of $10 to purchase the Punjab Transport Department driver's licence bearing the name Ramandeep Sandhu.

40 In answer to the Tribunal's questions, the applicant stated that he knew that as a result of the disqualification from driving in September 2011 he was not permitted, as a matter of law, to drive a vehicle on a road in Western Australia until the conclusion of the disqualification period. He further admitted that he knew this to be the case when on 20 December 2011 (approximately two days prior to the expiration of the disqualification period) he was driving a vehicle on a road. He said he knew when the police officer asked to see his driver's licence and he produced the Punjab Transport Department driver's licence of Ramandeep Sandhur, that he intended the police officer to be misled into believing that the driver's licence he provided was his. The applicant's and his wife's statements referred to above suggest that the applicant was tempted or fated by others and his circumstances (the need to provide for his family), to deceive the authorities by the use of the Punjabi driver's licence. The connotation is to diminish the applicant's responsibility for the factual scenario underlying the offences of which he was convicted and to imply that the convictions do not adversely reflect upon the applicant's character. This assertion is not consistent with the admitted fact that he purchased the Punjab Transport Department driver's licence bearing the name Ramandeep Sandhu for $10 or the applicant having any or any substantial insight into his wrongdoing.

41 The applicant was charged with driving whilst disqualified (s 49 of the RT Act) and for the use of a 'forged or altered licence' (s 97(2) of the RT Act). The applicant's conduct involves an element of premeditation, deception and dishonesty. Notwithstanding the applicant's evidence and the statements of his wife referred to above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant's conduct was deliberate and not the consequence of any mistake nor the consequence of necessity. The deliberateness of the applicant's conduct that resulted in the convictions reflects adversely upon the applicant's character.

42 The applicant asserted in support of his case that, nonetheless, he is of good character and that the Tribunal should set aside the respondent's cancellation of his T extension to his motor vehicle licence, in that:

1. he has no convictions in New Zealand and no convictions in Australia other than those disclosed on the National Police Certificate;
2. he has never breached any taxi regulations whilst driving a taxi in Western Australia; and
3. he has not been the subject of a complaint as a taxi driver.

43 The Tribunal finds that each of those assertions in 1), 2) and 3) above are true and correct and none was challenged by the respondent. However, those facts are not sufficient for the Tribunal to find on all of the evidence, including the applicant's convictions, that he is of good character such that he should continue to hold a T extension.

44 The applicant produced further documents to support his contention that he is a person of good character despite his convictions.

45 The applicant relied upon four references. One reference is signed by Mr Ricky Sandhu, whose occupation is described as 'dentist' and whose address is described as '2 Murdoch Grove, Greenfields 6216'. That reference is dated 14 January 2013. Mr Sandhu describes himself as a 'Family friend' who has known the applicant and his family 'from the last 10 years[,] that is, the days he was living in New Zealand'. Mr Sandhu states that he considers the applicant to be a person, amongst other things, of a good moral character and was aware of his convictions for driving a car on a forged overseas driver's licence. Mr Sandhu considers that that conduct was 'unacceptable and cannot be endorsed', but that he 'noticed that [the applicant] is remorseful for whatever illegal [sic] he has done as it does not reflect his true character at all'.

46 The second reference is by Ms Kaur. Ms Kaur's occupation is described as 'registered nurse' (registration No NMW0001650161). The address is described as '204D/25 Herdsman Parade, Wembley, WA'. This reference is written on 15 January 2013. The format is similar to that of the reference by Mr Sandhu. Ms Kaur also described herself as a family friend of the applicant and his wife. Ms Kaur states that that, notwithstanding the applicant's conviction, he is a 'gentleman and bears a high moral character'. Similarly to Mr Sandhu, she describes the hardship suffered by him and his family and his remorse for his conduct.

47 The Tribunal, in assessing these two letters of good character, took steps to inquire on the public register kept and maintained by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and noted that Ms Kaur is indeed a registered nurse but her name as registered is Ms Simerjit Sandhu. The Tribunal also noted that there were no AHPRA registration details provided by Mr Sandhu in his reference. The Tribunal notes that there was no registration of a dental practitioner on the AHPRA register of practitioners consistent with the name of Mr Ricky Sandhu, and the only registration of dentists with that surname were not related to Mr Ricky Sandhu.

48 The Tribunal put to the applicant that Mr Ricky Sandhu was not registered in Western Australia as a dentist. The applicant explained in his answer that Mr Ricky Sandhu was a dentist in India and was still undergoing training in Australia to become registered as a dental practitioner in Australia. The Tribunal put to the applicant that in fact in Australia Mr Sandhu was not a dentist. The applicant agreed. The Tribunal considers that it is possible that in the mind of the applicant and Mr Sandhu there might have been a misunderstanding that when Mr Sandhu referred to his occupation as 'dentist', he was referring to his occupation as a dentist and qualification to practise as a dentist in India. Mr Sandhu was not called as a witness so the Tribunal could not ask him any questions about this matter.

49 The Tribunal put to the applicant that Ms Kaur was in fact Ms Simerjit Sandhu and had the same surname as Mr Ricky Sandhu, and asked if they were related. The applicant conceded that Mr Ricky Sandhu and Ms Kaur were married and lived together in Wembley. The applicant explained that it was not compulsory or even common for married women in India to use their married surname, and he referred to the fact that his wife likewise does not use his surname. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's wife's surname on her passport is 'Kaur'. The Tribunal put to the applicant that although it may not be common for married women in India to adopt their husband's surname on marriage, Ms Kaur had adopted her husband's surname for the purposes of registration as a nurse and midwife on the APRHA register. The applicant did not give any explanation why Ms Kaur had written the reference in her maiden name and had become registered as a registered nurse using her husband's surname.

50 The Tribunal asked whether the applicant knew whether Mr Ricky Sandhu and Ms Kaur were married as at 14 January 2013. After some consideration, the applicant agreed that as at the date of execution of the character references, he was certain that Mr Ricky Sandhu and Ms Kaur were married. The Tribunal asked when they had married and he indicated approximately the year before the date of the references - December 2011 or January 2012. The Tribunal asked the applicant why it was that Mr Ricky Sandhu's address was described, as at 14 January 2013, as '2, Murdoch Drive Greenfields 6210, WA', a suburb of Mandurah in Western Australia. He could offer no explanation save to say that that was an earlier address for Mr Ricky Sandhu.

51 The Tribunal expressly put to the applicant that Mr Ricky Sandhu and Ms Kaur had described themselves and their address in such a way as to appear to be independent of one another, so as to appear to be two separate independent referees rather than a married couple providing essentially one reference. He denied that to be the case.

52 The Tribunal then noted and put to the applicant that Mr Ricky Sandhu's surname was the same as the surname on the Punjab Department of Transport driver's licence (Ramandeep Sandhu), which the applicant had used on 20 December 2011. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether Mr Ricky Sandhu and Mr Ramandeep Sandhu were related. The applicant said they were not. The Tribunal asked the applicant how was he so sure of that and the applicant responded that he was sure because Mr Ricky Sandhu was in fact his (that is, the applicant's) brother. At no time prior to that point in the proceeding had the applicant indicated that Mr Ricky Sandhu was the applicant's brother and that Ms Kaur was the applicant's sister­in­law ­ the same brother and sister-in-law whom he and his wife had asserted were providing the applicant with financial support because he could not drive a taxi.

53 Up until that point in time in the proceeding there was no suggestion in the applicant's evidence that Mr Ricky Sandhu was the applicant's brother. The applicant conceded, in answer to the Tribunal's questions, that Mr Sandhu was in fact his brother and Ms Kaur was his sister-in-law who were supporting the applicant, his wife and three children during the period that his driver's licence was suspended and who were allegedly currently supporting him and his family because he could not return to driving a taxi.

54 The Tribunal finds that Mr Sandhu and his wife, Ms Kaur, have a vested interest in seeing the applicant return to taxi driving work as he has allegedly been unable to obtain full­time gainful employment as a cleaner, given the fact that he no longer holds a clear National Police Certificate. The Tribunal considers this fact substantially detracts from the value of these two references. Further, the Tribunal finds that the applicant knew that Mr Sandhu and his wife had mis­described themselves. Had it not been for the Tribunal's enquiry of the applicant about the referees, the real relationship between the applicant and the referees would not have been known. The Tribunal finds that the applicant withheld relevant information from the Tribunal, which information goes to the credibility of the referees and their statements in the references. The applicant's counsel, in closing, suggested that it was correct for Mr Sandhu and his wife to describe themselves as family friends of the applicant upon the basis that 'friend' is a wider description than family member and inclusive of family members. The Tribunal rejected that submission. Based upon the information before the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that the applicant, Mr Sandhu and Ms Kaur failed to disclose to the Tribunal the critical facts concerning the references given by Ms Kaur and Mr Sandhu and, in particular, failed to disclose to the Tribunal that they were members of the applicant's family who had a vested interest in the Tribunal setting aside the respondent's decision and reinstating the applicant's T extension. The Tribunal concludes that the character references by Mr Sandhu and Ms Kaur are not proved ­ that is, the references do not prove that the writers hold a true and genuine belief that the applicant is a person of good character. Further and alternatively, the Tribunal concludes that the character references by Ms Kaur and Mr Sandhu are of no weight, or no significant weight.

The applicant's advance of the character references of Mr Sandhu and Ms Kaur

55 Although the applicant answered the Tribunal's questions readily and truthfully whilst under oath, the Tribunal finds that the applicant's failure to volunteer his relationship with Mr Sandhu and Ms Kaur, reflects adversely upon the applicant's moral character.

56 The applicant relied upon a character by Mr Ashwani Chaudhary whom the applicant said was a colleague he met and knew whilst driving a taxi. The character reference by Mr Chaudhary is dated 12 January 2013 and it describes Mr Chaudhary as a taxi driver. Mr Chaudhary states that he has known the applicant since 2008 and has known him to be 'of good character, honest, faithful, of helping nature, and a person strictly non­violative of any road rules'. He states:

I am aware that Mr Singh was caught driving his private car on a forged license [sic] while his WA license [sic] was suspended, in consequence to which his T extension was also cancelled. I am astonished how a noble person like him could commit such an act of fraudulent nature as it did not at all imitate the actual good character of the said person.

I have noted that Mr Singh whole heartedly repents this act though he might have taken it under the dire compulsion of fulfilling his family's financial needs. I have further noticed that this action has caused Mr Singh a Psychological setback besides affecting him a lot in terms of financial loss. He has assured me that the last thing he would ever do is to get involved in such like unlawful acts.

...

57 This letter indicates that Mr Chaudhary is of the view that the applicant has insight into, repents and is remorseful of his conduct, and has suffered to some extent as a result of lawfully imposed restrictions on his authority to drive a vehicle as a consequence of his conduct leading to the convictions referred to. Although Mr Chaudhary was not called as a witness, the Tribunal considers that there is no reason for the Tribunal not to accept Mr Chaudhary's opinion of the applicant and finds that Mr Chaudhary genuinely holds the opinion that the applicant is a person of good character. It is particularly weighty that Mr Chaudhary, as a taxi driver, should hold the opinion that the applicant is of good character with a view to returning to the business of driving a taxi. However, the degree of contact that Mr Chaudhary has had with the applicant since the applicant ceased driving a taxi (that is, 2009) is not clear. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that Mr Chaudhary genuinely holds the opinion or belief that the applicant is of good character, the Tribunal is not persuaded by that opinion that the applicant is in fact a person of good character for the purposes of a T extension in light of all of the evidence before the Tribunal.

58 The applicant also relied upon a character reference provided by Mr Adnan Sulejman. The applicant did not call Mr Sulejman to give evidence. Under questioning by the Tribunal, the applicant gave evidence to clarify that Mr Sulejman had not been able to provide him with more than one or two jobs since his conviction because he did not have sufficient work to keep the applicant fully occupied. The applicant explained that when his driver's licence was suspended in September 2011, and then suspended for a further nine months, Mr Sulejman found other people to service the cleaning contracts that he had been servicing. He stated that it was difficult now for the applicant to find new work as a cleaner because he could not produce a National Police Certificate that was clear of any convictions. Mr Sulejman does not confirm this fact.

59 Mr Sulejman states that he could not provide the applicant with cleaning work because 'he could not reach at the job site with his cleaning equipment at the given time for want of his driving license [sic] ...'. Mr Sulejman does state that he 'bears a good moral character'. Mr Sulejman's reference has more to do with the applicant's hardship submission and whether he was a good cleaner than it does with the applicant's character. Mr Sulejman's reference to the applicant's character is an aside. Whilst the Tribunal concludes that Mr Sulejman holds the belief that the applicant is a hardworking man of good character who engaged in 'foolish' conduct (a reference to his convictions), the Tribunal is not persuaded by that opinion that the applicant is in fact a person of good character for the purposes of a T extension in light of all of the evidence before the Tribunal.

60 The Tribunal is bound to determine whether, on the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant is a person of good character such that his T extension should be restored.

61 The respondent says that the applicant is not a truthful and honest individual and lacks the qualities required to be considered a person of good character so that his T extension should be restored. The respondent principally relies upon the fact that during the period of disqualification the applicant 'chose' to drive without authority and purchased a forged driver's licence from a friend which was a calculated move by him to deceive police and avoid detection for driving without a driver's licence. The respondent says at paragraph 11 of the statement of issues, facts and contentions:

Whilst the offence is not related to his work as a taxi driver the premeditated and deceitful element does give rise to doubts about the Applicant's character and his suitability to hold a vocational driver's licence. Taxi drivers in particular are in a position of trust and the public expectation is that drivers should be of good character.

62 As to the issue of traffic offences resulting in the 12 demerit points, the respondent, in paragraph 9 of his statement of issues, facts and contentions, appears to assert that the applicant's character is to be assessed by reference to the fact that the applicant accumulated 12 demerit points for a 'series of infringements for speeding offences and using a mobile phone'.

63 The Tribunal finds that the accumulation of 12 demerits points for a series of four infringements for speeding offences and using a mobile phone, over a two year period, is not reflective of the applicant's character in this particular case. The Tribunal considers that, the applicant's convictions for driving without authority and using a forged or altered driver's licence in the circumstances described above, do indicate a preparedness to mislead the authorities. The applicant's conduct in advancing the references of Mr Sandhu and Ms Kaur, as described above, without disclosing all of the facts of his relationship with those referees (and between those referees) also indicates a preparedness to mislead. These facts, along with the connotation from the applicant's assertions and his wife's assertions referred to above, are not consistent with the applicant showing real insight into his behaviour which culminated in his conviction. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant regrets the financial pain and discomfort he visited upon his family as a consequence of his disqualification from driving following his convictions, but he has not persuaded the Tribunal that he has learned from his wrongdoing or that he recognises his preparedness to mislead authorities as a flaw of his character. The Tribunal considers that the public must be able to have confidence in the honesty of the taxi drivers who provide the public with taxi services. In this proceeding the Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant is currently a person of such good character that he may hold a T extension and be permitted to provide that service for the public.

64 The Tribunal concludes that on the evidence before the Tribunal, the respondent's convictions are an appropriate reason to consider a variation to the applicant's driver's licence pursuant to reg 28 of the regulations. In considering whether to vary the applicant's licence so as to cancel the T extension endorsed on the applicant's driver's licence, the Tribunal has had regard to all of the factors in reg 12, reg 25 and reg 41 of the regulations. The relevant factor is the character of the applicant.

65 For the reasons expressed above, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant is of good character such as that required to hold a T extension on the evidence before the Tribunal. For this reason the Tribunal affirms the respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's T extension to his driver's licence.

66 The applicant concerted that a basis for the Tribunal setting aside the respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's T extension is that the cancellation would result in hardship to the applicant. The applicant asserts that the hardship is demonstrated by the fact that he cannot earn a living as a taxi driver to keep his family, which is all that was left for him, as he cannot find new work as a cleaner. In support of this, the applicant relied upon the fact that Mr Sulejman could not give him any new work. The applicant gave evidence that he only had one or two cleaning jobs from Mr Sulejman because the latter had no openings for additional staff. The applicant gave evidence that he could not get new cleaning work because he was unable to show a clear National Police Certificate. Mr Sulejman does not state that he cannot engage the applicant because of his convictions. However, the Tribunal accepts that the recording of the applicant's convictions will detract from the applicant's prospects of successful employment as a cleaner or any other position which involves a degree of trust and confidence in him. The alleged hardship suffered, however, is a consequence of his conduct resulting in the convictions and not from the cancellation of the licence.

67 The authority that is most frequently quoted on this issue is Director General for Planning and Infrastructure and Nealon [2003] WASCA 161 in which the Full Court of the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate in that matter had erred in considering and taking into account the hardship of cancellation of a licence to a party as being relevant to whether the licence should be cancelled or not. That case was decided well prior to the promulgation of the regulations that now comprise the law as to the grant, variation, cancellation and review of decisions concerning authorisation to drive. There is one instance under the regulations where hardship is to be taken into account concerning the minimum age of a driver (reg 15 and reg 22 of the regulations) which is not relevant in this matter. For this reason, the Tribunal rejected the submission that any of the evidence concerning hardship is relevant to the Tribunal's review of the respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's T extension to his driver's licence.

1. The respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's 'T' extension to his driver's licence made on 17 November 2012, affirmed by the respondent following a review pursuant to reg 42(3) of the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Regulations 2008 (WA) on 21 December 2012, is hereby affirmed.

I certify that this and the preceding [67] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________