Ridler-Dutton v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2012] NSWADT 57

Ridler-Dutton v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2012] NSWADT 57

The Tribunal held that the initial interpretation of s 15(2)(c)(ii) was correct, so the provision focuses on the period since the applicant last carried on the relevant licensed activity. Although the Applicant had not been engaged in armed guard activities for a significant period and the discretion to refuse was enlivened, the refusal should not stand because the decision-maker relied only on the six-year gap and failed to assess the Applicant's aptitude, skills, experience, character, attitude and recent security work. The evidence from experienced security industry witnesses overwhelmingly supported that the Applicant had the qualifications, competence and suitability to perform armed...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Refusal to Grant a Class 1 F Security Licence / Merits Review After Refusal Was Affirmed on Internal Review
Outcome
Decision under review set aside; Tribunal decided instead that a class 1F security licence is to be granted to the Applicant.
Legal Topics
['class 1 F Security Licence' 'armed Guard Activities' 'discretion to Refuse Licence' 'significant Period of Non Engagement in Licensed Activity' 'merits Review']
['administrative Law' 'security Industry Licensing'] ['class 1 F Security Licence' 'armed Guard Activities' 'discretion to Refuse Licence' 'significant Period of Non Engagement in Licensed Activity' 'merits 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Refusal to Grant a Class 1 F Security Licence / Merits Review After Refusal Was Affirmed on Internal Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 15(2)(c)(ii) of the Security Industry Act 1997 was enlivened because the Applicant had previously been licensed for armed guard activities but had not been engaged in those activities for a significant period.' 'Whether the correct interpretation of s 15(2)(c)(ii) focuses on the time elapsed since the applicant last carried on the relevant activity.' 'Whether, if the discretion to refuse was enlivened, it should be exercised to refuse the Applicant a class 1F licence.' "Whether the Applicant's aptitude, training, skills, experience, character and attitude justified granting a class 1F security licence despite the gap in armed guard activities."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the initial interpretation of s 15(2)(c)(ii) was correct, so the provision focuses on the period since the applicant last carried on the relevant licensed activity. Although the Applicant had not been engaged in armed guard activities for a significant period and the discretion to refuse was enlivened, the refusal should not stand because the decision-maker relied only on the six-year gap and failed to assess the Applicant's aptitude, skills, experience, character, attitude and recent security work. The evidence from experienced security industry witnesses overwhelmingly supported that the Applicant had the qualifications, competence and suitability to perform armed...

Court Disposition

Decision under review set aside; Tribunal decided instead that a class 1F security licence is to be granted to the Applicant.

Orders

  • ['Set aside the decision under review.' 'Decide instead that a class 1F security licence is to be granted to the Applicant.']