Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2015
  4. Yassir v Department of Transport and Main Roads Passenger Transport Operations - [2015] QCAT 455

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Yassir v Department of Transport and Main Roads Passenger Transport Operations[2015] QCAT 455

Yassir v Department of Transport and Main Roads Passenger Transport Operations[2015] QCAT 455

CITATION:

Yassir v Department of Transport and Main Roads Passenger Transport Operations [2015] QCAT 455

PARTIES:

Rage Yassir

(Applicant)

 

v

 

Department of Transport and Main Roads Passenger Transport Operations

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR217-15

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Acting Senior Member Allen

DELIVERED ON:

16 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. The application for a stay is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

STAY APPLICATION – suspension of driver authorisation – where driver had a conviction, adverse traffic and complaint history- whether grounds to grant stay.

Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 s 32

Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 s 20, 24, 31, 32  and 103

Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 2005 s 30(2) 102

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 19 and 22

Techno Protective Security Services Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCAT 699

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Mr Yassir holds a driver authorisation[1] for Taxi, Limousine, General & Scheduled Services, which was suspended with immediate effect[2] by a delegate of the Chief Executive on 25 August 2015. The grounds of the suspension were that it was necessary having regard to the purposes of driver authorisation[3] and in particular:
    1. There had been a report of an incident at a taxi rank involving a person who it was alleged was Mr Yassir;
    2. that he had a conviction which could at the Commissioner’s discretion could result in suspension or cancellation of his driver authorisation; and
    3. that he had a traffic and complaint history, which exhibited unsafe driving and abusive behaviour. He has requested that that decision be internally reviewed[4] and has made an application to the Tribunal for a stay of the decision[5]. If a stay is granted Mr Yassir will have his driver authorisation returned during the period of the stay.
  2. [2]
    The Tribunal may make an order staying a decision of the Commissioner for which an internal review application has been made in accordance with s 32 of the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994. The Tribunal may stay the original decision to secure the effectiveness of the internal review and any later external review by the Tribunal. The period of the stay must not extend past the time when the Chief Executive reviews the original decision and any later period allowed by the Tribunal to enable Mr Yassir to apply for a review of the decision.
  3. [3]
    In addition to the above factors hen the Tribunal is considering whether it is appropriate to grant a stay in a case such as this the Tribunal relies on the same considerations it would if the applicant for the stay had have been made pending an external review by the Tribunal of the internal review decision[6].
  4. [4]
    The Tribunal may make an order to stay the operation of a decision if it considers it desirable having regard to:
    1. The interests of any person whose interests may be affected by the making of the order or the order not being made;
    2. Any submission made by the Commissioner; and
    3. The public interest[7].
  5. [5]
    Mr Yassir noted in his letter accompanying the application that the grounds in regard to the criminal matter, his complaint and traffic history had been raised in a notice of intention to suspend in 2014 which following his response was not issued and he relied on those responses.  That he denied the allegation in regard to the incident at the taxi rank stating that he had been a taxi driver for 10 years and never drank and drove. He noted that he is the sole breadwinner for his family of his wife and two children. That he also studies and his wife is not able to work due to her visa status. If he cannot drive taxis, his family will have no income.
  6. [6]
    The Chief Executive submitted that Mr Yassir had been convicted of an offence, which enabled him to exercise his discretion to suspend or cancel Mr Yassir’s driver authorisation. That the other considerations were his adverse traffic history with 20 offences committed during his time as a taxi driver and his complaint history, which show a pattern of unsafe driving and abusive behaviour.
  7. [7]
    The Chief Executive considers the public interest to be the most important of the factors listed above. Which he says is reinforced by the provisions of s 23 of the TO (PT) Act, which lists the purpose of driver authorisation as being to maximise public confidence in passenger transport services in relation to the drivers of public transport vehicles. The Chief Executive is specifically required to consider the purposes of driver authorisation when deciding to suspend or cancel a person’s driver authorisation.
  8. [8]
    The Chief Executive treated the above matters in regard to Mr Yassir’s conduct both as a driver and generally as serious and proceeded with the action taken consistently with the legislative provisions and purposes of driver authorisation.
  9. [9]
    The Chief Executive submits that the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Chief Executive when deciding the stay application and is also bound to consider the purposes of driver authorisation. While that is not the case as the Tribunal is exercising or its original jurisdiction and not a review jurisdiction so s 19 of the QCAT Act. The Tribunal does consider the Public Interest, which clearly requires the Tribunal to look at the effect of the granting of the stay, which would include consideration of the purposes of the driver authorisation.
  10. [10]
    The Chief Executive submits that the Chief Executive is required by the Queensland travelling public to ensure that driver authorisation holders are fit and proper persons to hold an authorisation. The public are entitled to rely on the Tribunal to keep persons with criminal convictions, adverse traffic and complaint histories away from driving public passenger vehicles. Refusing to grant the stay does not prevent Mr Yassir from obtaining other income for himself.
  11. [11]
    The Chief Executive finally submits that a stay is not warranted as it is in the public interest to refuse it and refusing to grant it does not affect the outcome of the review and so it is not necessary to secure the effectiveness of the review.
  12. [12]
    Mr Yassir’s interests will be affected if the stay is not granted because he will not have the source of income, which the driver authorisation represents. The Commissioner that having regard to the adverse factors raised in regard in regard to Mr Yassir it is not in the public interest to grant the stay.
  13. [13]
    The holder of a driver authorisation is required to meet certain standards as mentioned above and  the grounds raised by the Chief Executive apart from the current incident are established though Mr Yassir was successful in not having his licence suspended as a result of them. Mr Yassir denies the current incident. While he should have the opportunity to answer, the allegation made the Tribunal considers that pending the outcome of the review decision that the interests of the public in obtaining safe public traffic travel outweigh Mr Yassir’s personal interest in regard to his income source.
  14. [14]
    The application for a stay is refused.
  15. [15]
    The Tribunal notes that if the decision of the Chief Executive is adverse to Mr Yassir he will have a right of review to the Tribunal and at that time he will be able to apply for a stay of the review decision in accordance with s 22 of the QCAT Act.

Footnotes

[1] Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 s 24.

[2] Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 2005 s 30(2).

[3] TO(PT) Regulation s 23.

[4] TO(PT) Regulation and s 31 of the TO(PT) Act s 102.

[5] TO(PT) Act s 32.

[6] Techno Protective Security Services Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCAT 699.

[7] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 22.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Rage Yassir v Department of Transport and Main Roads Passenger Transport Operations

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Yassir v Department of Transport and Main Roads Passenger Transport Operations

  • MNC:

    [2015] QCAT 455

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    A/Senior Member Allen

  • Date:

    16 Oct 2015

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Techno Protective Security Services Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCAT 699
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 699
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 699

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.