Tabaja v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATOD 27;

1. I note the applicant was using the online virtual hearing room for the first time in these proceedings, and she likely had no prior knowledge of how the process operated other than by reference to the brief instructions sheet she was sent by the Registry in advance of the proceedings on 13 January 2026.
2. It appears to me that the applicant was in one of the Tribunal's online virtual hearing rooms at the appointed time on 13 January 2026, and she made a genuine effort to attend the proceedings.
3. Whilst she could have contacted the Registry earlier, she did make contact and she made the application to reinstate quickly (two days).
4. I am satisfied the applicant has provided a reasonable excuse for the failure to attend on 13 January 2026.
5. That is not the end of the matter.
6. The question to reinstate is a discretionary one, which according to Wallace requires consideration of further matters, including the strength of the appeal and its likelihood of success.

The strength of the appeal and its likelihood of success.

1. Of the three discretionary factors Wallace requires me to consider, only one appears to be relevant, the strength of the appeal and its likelihood of success.
2. There are no significant issues relating to the nature of the appeal and no injustice would flow to the respondent if the appeal were reinstated.
3. Section 26(1A) of the Act provides:

The Commissioner must revoke a licence where the Commissioner is satisfied that, if the licensee were applying for a new licence, the application would be required by this Act to be refused.

(1) The Commissioner must refuse to grant an application for a licence if the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant-

...

(b) has, within the period of 5 years before the application for the licence was made, been found guilty (but with no conviction being recorded) by a court in New South Wales or elsewhere of an offence prescribed by the regulations in relation to the class of licence sought, whether or not the offence is an offence under New South Wales law,

1. Subclause 15(1A) of the Security Industry Regulation 2016 (the Regulation) provides:

(1A) Prescribed offences: section 16(1) (b) For the purposes of section 16(1) (b) of the Act, the following offences are prescribed offences regardless of whether they are committed in New South Wales:

(a) an offence referred to in subclause (1) (a), (b) or (d)(l),

(1) Prescribed offences: section 16(1) (a) and (b) For the purposes of section 16 of the Act, the following offences are prescribed offences regardless of whether they are committed in New South Wales-

...

(d) Offences involving fraud, dishonesty or stealing

An offence under the law of any Australian or overseas jurisdiction involving fraud, dishonesty or stealing, being an offence in respect of which the maximum penalty is (had the offence been committed under the law of an Australian jurisdiction) imprisonment for 3 months or more.

1. Subclause 15(1)(d) of the Regulation relates to the types of criminal charges that will disqualify a person from holding a licence. These include those offenses involving fraud, dishonesty or stealing, if they carry a penalty of three months or more of imprisonment.
2. The applicant was charged with an offence of larceny, which is an offence punishable under s 117 of the Crimes Act, by a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment:

117 Punishment for larceny

Whosoever commits larceny, or any indictable offence by this Act made punishable like larceny, shall, except in the cases hereinafter otherwise provided for, be liable to imprisonment for five years.

Is larceny an offence involving fraud, dishonesty or stealing?

1. The Act does not define the term dishonesty. In Farah v Director General, Department of Finance and Services [2014] NSWCATAP 23 (Farah) at [39] - [40] the Tribunal discussed what should be considered in determining if an offence involves dishonesty. At [31], the Tribunal identified:

"...Examples of offences which come within the ordinary meaning of dishonesty offences are stealing, robbery and offences where property is gained through indirect means such as false pretences and conspiracy to defraud: Barber v Law Society of NSW (No 2) [2001] NSWSC 361at [32]. lying under oath is another example. There is also clear authority that obtaining money by false or misleading statements is an offence involving dishonesty: Pollard v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 659 at 668-669; Doja v R [2009] NSWCCA 303 at [174]- [179]."

1. Adopting that approach, larceny is a crime of dishonesty within the meaning of Subclause 15(1)(d) of the Regulation.
2. It follows that the applicant has a disqualifying conviction which would prevent the Tribunal from issuing her with a licence in the substantive proceeding.

1. The applicant made no submissions on the law.
2. It should be noted that in the notes of the orders made by the Tribunal's on 23 December 2025 and 19 January 2026, the Tribunal emphasised the applicant's obligation to identify what powers the Tribunal had to make the orders sought and the potential repercussions for failing to do so. The notes were in the following terms:

"In any submissions, parties should address the relevant considerations as to stay. It is unclear the legal basis on which the orders are sought in the substantive proceedings. Parties will need to make submissions as to whether the Tribunal has the power to make the orders sought. The application may be dismissed in its entirety if the applicant does not identify the order making power of the Tribunal."

1. The applicant has been provided with three separate opportunities to identify the order making power of the Tribunal in the substantive proceedings:

(1) the administrative review application form, which did not address the issue, although it should be noted that the form does not expressly ask the applicant to identify the power(s) in question;

(2) the applicant's submissions of 21 January 2026, which did not address the issue; and, which followed the orders of 23 December 2025 and 19 January 2026, which invited her submissions on this point; and,

(3) the applicant was also given an opportunity to provide that information and make those submissions at the hearing of the application to reinstate the proceedings on 17 February 2026.

1. The applicant was unable to point to a power vested in the Tribunal to make the orders she sought in the substantive proceedings before the Tribunal.
2. The applicant did file written submissions in support of her application to reinstate the proceedings and made oral submissions at the hearing of the application to reinstate the proceedings on 17 February 2026.
3. Those submissions did not address the question as to whether the Tribunal has the power to make the orders she sought and they did not address the strength of the appeal and its likelihood of success.
4. Both the applicant's written and oral submissions focused on the applicant's love for working in the security industry, her need for the licence so that she can generate an income and the financial hardship she will suffer in the absence of her ability to work in the security industry.

1. On 25 November 2025, the applicant was found guilty of a charge of Larceny T2, without a conviction being recorded, and was released under the provisions of a Supervised Conditional Release Order for a period of 10 months.
2. Larceny is an offence of dishonesty and is punishable by a sentence of up to five years imprisonment.
3. Because the applicant has within the last 5 years:

(1) been found guilty of an offence of dishonesty; and,

(2) the offence carries a penalty of imprisonment for a period of 3 months or more (subclauses 15(1A) and 15(1)(d) of the Regulation),

the applicant is not entitled to hold a security licence: s 16(1)(b) of the Act.

1. The Tribunal has no discretion in these proceedings to depart from the operation of subclauses 15(1A) and 15(1)(d) of the Regulation and s 16(1)(b) of the Act.
2. In these circumstances the Tribunal must dismiss the application to reinstate the proceeding as there is no possibility the applicant would be successful in a substantive hearing of the proceeding.

1. On 22 December 2025, the applicant filed an application for a stay.
2. Because of the Tribunal's decision not to reinstate the proceedings, the stay application is of no practical utility and for that reason it is dismissed.

(1) The application to reinstate the proceedings is refused.

(2) The application to stay proceedings is dismissed.

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.