Birch v Commissioner for Fair Trading and Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 166

Birch v Commissioner for Fair Trading and Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 166

The tribunal found the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a tattooist licence due to a history of serious criminal offending, repeated acts of violence and breaches of AVOs, unsatisfactory evidence of rehabilitation, multiple traffic offences indicating disregard for law, and lack of sufficient tested medical evidence about his mental health. Furthermore, the tribunal held that it was not in the public interest for him to be licensed, as those aware of his history would lack confidence in public protection and regulatory standards. The decision to refuse the licence was affirmed.

Parties
Applicant: Adam J Birch; First Respondent: Commissioner for Fair Trading; Second Respondent: Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Decision
Outcome
decision under review affirmed
Legal Topics
Tattooist Licensing, Fit and Proper Person Test, Public Interest, Criminal History and Rehabilitation, Domestic Violence, Administrative Review
Administrative Law Licensing Law Tattooist Licensing Fit and Proper Person Test Public Interest Criminal History and Rehabilitation Domestic Violence Administrative Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam J Birch

Applicant

Commissioner for Fair Trading

First Respondent

Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted a tattooist licence under the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012
  2. 2 Whether it would be contrary to the public interest to grant the licence to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a tattooist licence due to a history of serious criminal offending, repeated acts of violence and breaches of AVOs, unsatisfactory evidence of rehabilitation, multiple traffic offences indicating disregard for law, and lack of sufficient tested medical evidence about his mental health. Furthermore, the tribunal held that it was not in the public interest for him to be licensed, as those aware of his history would lack confidence in public protection and regulatory standards. The decision to refuse the licence was affirmed.

Court Disposition

decision under review affirmed

Orders

  • The decision under review is affirmed.
  • Pursuant to s 64(1)(b),(c) and (d) of the CAT Act, the recording and transcript of the confidential hearing on 10 May 2017, confidential exhibit CR 6 and paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 65 are not for publication or for disclosure to the public, applicant or first respondent.