Peric v Director General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 22 (14 February 2001)

Last Updated: 6 June 2001

NEW SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL GENERAL DIVISION

CITATION: Peric v Director General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 22

PARTIES: APPLICANT

Miladin Peric

RESPONDENT

Director General, Department of Transport

FILE NUMBERS: 003385

HEARING DATES: 09/01/01

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 09/01/2001

DECISION DATE: 14/02/2001

BEFORE: Fleming G - Judicial Member

LEGISLATION CITED: Passenger Transport Act 1990

CASES CITED:

APPLICATION: Passenger Transport Act - private hire vehicle driver - grant of authority

Passenger Transport Act - taxi driver - cancellation of authority

Private hire vehicle driver - grant of authority

Taxi driver - cancellation of authority

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE: APPLICANT

In person

RESPONDENT REPRESENTATIVE: RESPONDENT

A Wozniak, solicitor

ORDERS: 1. The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review to refuse to grant Miladin Peric a license to drive a private hire vehicle and to cancel his licence to drive a public passenger vehicle

Reasons for Decision:

The Application

1 On 14 November 2000 the Director General, Department of Transport (the Director General) cancelled Miladin Peric's authorities to drive taxi-cabs and made a decision to refuse to grant him a licence to drive hire cars. The Director General's reasons for these decisions were that "Your proven offence record indicates that you [Mr Peric] can no longer be considered a person of good repute and in all respects a fit and proper person to drive a public passenger vehicle".

The Relevant Law

2 Under s 52(1) of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (`the Act'), a person whose application has been refused or whose accreditation or authority has been varied, suspended or cancelled, may apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of that decision.

3 Section 14 of the Act gives the Director General power to vary, suspend or cancel any person's authority. That section states that. . "having regard to the purpose of an authority, the Director-General may at any time vary, suspend or cancel any person's authority".

4 The purpose of an authority is set out in s 11(2):

The purpose of an authority under this Division is to attest:

(a) that the authorised person is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a public passenger vehicle; and

(b) that the authorised person is considered to have sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive the vehicle or vehicles to which the authority relates:

(i) in accordance with the conditions under which a public passenger service is operated; and

(ii) in accordance with law and custom.

5 The issue in this case is whether the Director General made the correct and preferable decision in cancelling the applicant's taxi authority and refusing to grant an authority to drive a hire car.

Evidence

6 The Tribunal held a hearing and heard oral evidence from Mr Peric. Also before the Tribunal was the Department of Transport file in relation to Mr Peric and a number of documents extracted from the file of the District Court (re Peric) which was produced under summons.

7 Mr Peric is a married man with three children aged 9, 3 and 2 years. He told the Tribunal that his wife has a very senior position in Information Technology. He has found it difficult to get work in Australia other than driving taxis. He has spent several months of the last few years in Boznia, where he has worked as a Sales Representative for an oil company. He remains in Australia for the sake of his wife and children, despite his difficulties in finding work. He has at times worked as a caretaker.

8 In 1994 Mr Peric was convicted in Manly Local Court of Assault and was placed on a two year good behaviour bond under the provisions of s556A of the Crimes Act.

9 On 25 August 1999 Mr Peric was convicted in Manly Local Court of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. He was sentenced to enter a recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of three years and was fined $2000. Mr Peric appealed the sentence and the fine was reduced to $1000, the recognizance period remained the same.

10 Mr Peric told the Tribunal that both of these incidents occurred during a soccer match and with the same family. He said that he has a particular problem with that family and that he could not get witnesses to appear for him in the local court because they were afraid of repercussions from the family. The `fight' was about who would play soccer and what positions and order.

11 Magistrate Cleary on 25 August 1999 described Mr Peric's actions as "excessive and violent unnecessary force". He found that Mr Peric, could not accept a decision made in the course of the soccer game and that he `as a consequence became enraged and resorted to violence'. The assault proven included kicking the victim in the stomach and punching him in the face two times.

12 Mr Peric was first issued a licence to drive public passenger transport vehicles in 1995. He completed an application form for a licence in 3 July 1996. On this form he failed to declare that he had been convicted of a criminal offence in the previous 10 years (1994). Mr Peric told the Tribunal that the failure to declare the offence was due to his misunderstanding of the form and advice he was given at the time that he did not need to put down the offence. Mr Peric stated that his English language was not good at the time nor was he familiar with these types of forms and protocols in filling them in. He stated that he understood that checks would be made of his record and that it would in any event be disclosed in that way.

13 Mr Peric applied for a licence to drive a `private hire vehicle' on 28 August 2000. He failed to disclose his criminal convictions in this application. He told the Tribunal that he expected standards checks of his application would reveal his history.

14 Mr Peric submitted two references from persons whom he had worked with. They attested to his honesty, trustworthiness and reliability. He submitted that he had no complaints as to his driving taxis and that he had already been punished by the Court for the offences committed. Mr Peric submitted that the offences were peculiar to the heated environment of the soccer game and to particular tensions with only one family. He submitted that there is no likelihood of this behaviour being repeated while he drives a taxi or a hire car.

Findings and Reasons

15 The Act sets up an accreditation scheme for operators and drivers involved in public passenger services. The purpose of that scheme is to regulate those services so that they are safe, reliable and efficient. (See Section 4(a) and (e) of the Act.)

16 The provisions of s 14 of the PT Act, so far as they relate to this case, require that the applicant be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.

17 I am satisfied that a reasonable member of the travelling public who was aware of Mr Peric's convictions for assault would be troubled by the fact that, given his history, he was licensed to drive a public passenger vehicle.

18 I am not satisfied that, as Mr Peric submits, these two serious assaults can be excused because of the circumstances in which Mr Peric has described they occurred. The offences are serious offences of violence and most recently occurred within the last two years. Mr Peric has offered no insight into his own responsibility vis a vis these incidents referring the Tribunal instead to his claim that he could not get anyone to be a witness for him because they were fearful.

19 I am also not satisfied that Mr Peric acted honestly in his completion of applications for a license in 1996 and in 2000. I do not accept that Mr Peric did not understand his duty to fully disclose his convictions.

20 In my view the convictions against Mr Peric for assault are serious and raise a significant question as to his whether he is a fit and proper person to drive a taxi or hire car. I am also satisfied that he his failure to disclose these convictions was a dishonest act.

21 I am satisfied that having regard to all the evidence and in particular the seriousness and the circumstances of his convictions, the Director General was justified in cancelling Mr Peric's licence and refusing to issue a licence to drive a private hire car.

Order

22 The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review to refuse to grant Miladin Peric a license to drive a private hire vehicle and to cancel his licence to drive a public passenger vehicle.