Nadan v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATOD 166

Nadan v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATOD 166

The First incident was not properly described as a serious assault because there was no weapon, no evidence of injury, and the evidence of a head butt was equivocal, so mandatory revocation under s 26(1A) was not required. However, the Applicant had resorted to violence on two occasions, including unjustifiably punching a restrained patron during the Second incident when there was no imminent threat. Given the special public safety responsibilities of security licensees and the need for public confidence in the licensing system, retention of the licence was contrary to the public interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Review of Revocation of Class 1 AC Security Licence / NCAT Occupational Division Review of Decision Affirmed on Internal Review
Outcome
The decision under review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['revocation of Security Licence on Public Interest Grounds' 'assault Conduct by Security Licence Holder' 'serious Assault Offence' 'public Safety and Confidence in Licensing System' 'civil Standard of Proof']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Regulation' 'security Industry Licensing'] ['revocation of Security Licence on Public Interest Grounds' 'assault Conduct by Security Licence Holder' 'serious Assault Offence' 'public Safety and Confidence in Licensing System' 'civil Standard of Proof']

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

Review of Revocation of Class 1 AC Security Licence / NCAT Occupational Division Review of Decision Affirmed on Internal Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant's finding of guilt without conviction for common assault in the First incident was a serious assault offence requiring mandatory revocation of his security licence." "Whether the Applicant's conduct in the First and Second incidents made retention of his security licence contrary to the public interest." "Whether the Applicant's striking of a patron during the Second incident was justified as self-defence or reasonable force."]

Ratio Decidendi

The First incident was not properly described as a serious assault because there was no weapon, no evidence of injury, and the evidence of a head butt was equivocal, so mandatory revocation under s 26(1A) was not required. However, the Applicant had resorted to violence on two occasions, including unjustifiably punching a restrained patron during the Second incident when there was no imminent threat. Given the special public safety responsibilities of security licensees and the need for public confidence in the licensing system, retention of the licence was contrary to the public interest.

Court Disposition

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is affirmed.']