Eldridge v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2024] QCAT 504

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Eldridge v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2024] QCAT 504 PARTIES: JAMES EDWARD ELDRIDGE (applicant) v DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR466-23 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 17 October 2024 HEARING DATE: 22 May 2024 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Munasinghe ORDERS: The decision of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, refusing James Edward Eldridge’s application for a driver’s certificate, is confirmed. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether applicant is an appropriate person to hold a driver’s certificate under the Tow Truck Act 1973 (Qld) Human Rights Act 2019, s 13, s 24, s 58 Tow Truck Act 1973 (Qld), s 4C, s 13, s 14A, s 29 Tow Truck Regulation 2009 (Qld), s 10 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 13, s 24, s 58 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Eldridge v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2019] QCAT 57 Kracke v Mental Health Review Board & Ors [2009] VCAT 646 McLennan v The Commissioner of Police [2017] QDC 217 PJB v Melbourne Health [2011] VSC 327 PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 188 -- 1 of 12 -- 2 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: M J Lazinski (Counsel), instructed by Fraser Lawyers Respondent: Alexander H Vanenn (Solicitor), Crown Law REASONS FOR DECISION Background to the review [1] Mr Eldridge is a tow truck driver by profession. He has driven a tow truck since he was 21 years of age. He is now 40 years old. [2] Mr Eldridge previously held a tow truck driver’s certificate (‘certificate’), granted by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (‘DTMR’) on 6 January 2017. However, on 2 August 2018, DTMR cancelled his certificate because he was convicted of drug driving. [3] After a few years passed Mr Eldridge applied for a new certificate, but on 14 June 2023, DTMR refused his application. Mr Eldridge now applies to the Tribunal to review that decision. [4] DTMR opposes Mr Eldridge’s application on two grounds: (a) first, it contends that Mr Eldridge’s criminal and traffic history, considered cumulatively, means that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a certificate within the meaning of s 4C of the Tow Truck Act 1973 (Qld) (‘TT Act’); and (b) second, it submits that Mr Eldridge’s consumption of medical cannabis ought to preclude him from holding a certificate. The Law [5] The TT Act was in force at the time Mr Eldridge applied for his certificate.1 [6] A driver’s certificate authorises the holder of the certificate to operate a tow truck.2 [7] Section 14 of the TT Act permits a person to apply to the chief executive for a driver’s certificate (‘certificate’). The application must be made in accordance with a Regulation, which in this case was the now repealed Tow Truck Regulation 2009 (Qld) (‘TT Regulation’). [8] Section 14A TT Act provides that after considering the application the chief executive may: (a) grant the application; (b) grant the application subject to conditions; or (c) refuse to grant the application. [9] However, before granting the application, the chief executive:3 1 It was repealed on 26 August 2024. 2 TT Act, s 16(1). 3 TT Act, s 14A(2)(a), (b). -- 2 of 12 -- 3 (a) must consider relevant matters prescribed under the TT Regulation; (b) may consider any other matter the chief executive considers relevant. [10] Also, the chief executive must not grant the application if the chief executive is not satisfied the applicant is an appropriate person to hold a driver’s certificate.4 [11] Additionally, s 10 of the TT Regulation requires that the Chief Executive must refuse an application for a certificate if: (a) the applicant has been convicted of a disqualifying offence; or (b) the applicant has had a driver licence suspended, modified or cancelled. [12] Relevantly, when deciding who is an appropriate person, s 4C of the TT Act provides that without limiting what the chief executive may take into account, regard must be had to the following: (a) the person’s criminal history; (b) the person’s traffic history; (c) the person’s conduct while performing activities under a licence or certificate; (d) whether a person has been charged with or convicted of- (i) an offence against the Act; or (ii) a disqualifying offence; (e) whether the person holds a licence or certificate that has been cancelled, and if so, why it was cancelled. (f) whether the person is capable of satisfactorily performing the activities authorised under a licence or certificate including because of any known medical condition or physical mental incapacity. Mr Eldridge’s contentions [13] Mr Eldridge contends:5 (a) he is an appropriate person under section 4C of the TT Act; and (b) any concerns about his appropriateness can be sufficiently ameliorated by conditions imposed under s 10 of the TT Act, including: (i) that during the period he holds the certificate, he shall not consume or otherwise ingest any product, whether medicinal or otherwise, that contains delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (‘THC’); (ii) that he shall not consume any medicinal cannabis, not containing THC, but containing cannabidiol (‘CBD’) within a period of 72 hours prior to commencing any shift that requires the utilisation of the certificate under the TT Act; 4 Ibid, s 14A(3). 5 Applicant’s Closing Submissions, p1, para 3. -- 3 of 12 -- 4 (iii) that he will complete the Queensland Traffic Offenders Program (QTOP) within two weeks of the Tribunal’s decision; (iv) when driving he will use a GPS device that alerts him to applicable speed limits on Queensland roads when operating a tow truck under the certificate. Mr Eldridge’s personal circumstances [14] Before Mr Eldridge became a tow truck driver, he was dependent on welfare. He has no experience or skills in any other area, other than working as a metal polisher when he was a teenager. He did not attend secondary school and has no formal education after year 8. [15] Mr Eldridge professes to feeling a great degree of personal satisfaction from his job as a tow truck driver. He contends that he has made a positive contribution to the tow truck industry by providing emotional assistance to roadside victims. He claims to have received accolades from superiors and members of the community. [16] Mr Eldridge claims that working in the industry has given his life structure and provided a steady and reasonable income for his family. Mr Eldridge is the primary income earner for his family. The money he earns supports his wife, and their son, who has an intellectual disability. [17] Without a certificate Mr Eldridge cannot attend towing jobs that originate as accidents. In particular, he is precluded from performing work for the Queensland Police Service or performing private tow aways. Those jobs have the highest renumeration per tow. Before DTMR suspended his driver’s certificate, Mr Eldridge was earning $2,500 per week. Now he is only earning $1,333 per week. [18] Mr Eldridge acknowledges that he has several previous traffic infringements and offences against the TT Act (‘towing offences’). In respect of the towing offences, he contends: (a) they were trivial; (b) the offence of carrying an uncertified passenger which he committed on 7 January 2018 involved his nephew who he picked up a mere 500 metres from his house; (c) he committed an offence on 14 June 2021 by assisting a fellow East Coast Towing driver who was involved in an accident on route to a tow. He attended the accident with the welfare of his colleague in mind rather than with an intention to earn money or prevent another company from obtaining the tow. [19] Concerning his traffic history, Mr Eldridge submits that he is more likely to receive infractions for speeding than an ordinary person who spends less time on the road. Certain speeding offences occurred in areas of the motorway where DTMR recently changed speed limits. Other offences occurred ‘within weeks of having a young boy die in his arms’. That experience triggered a reoccurrence of PTSD symptoms, which included difficulties sleeping. He resorted to using cannabis to assist with his sleep. [20] Mr Eldridge professes to working with his GP to modify his medications to ensure that he only consumes legally prescribed cannabis sparingly. He claims that he leaves sufficient time for the cannabis to leave his system before driving. -- 4 of 12 -- 5 DTMR’s Submissions [21] DTMR submits:6 (a) Mr Eldridge has a concerning criminal history which is dominated by dishonesty and drug offences. From 2002 until 2016 he was sentenced by the courts on 11 separate occasions for 36 separate offences. Most relevantly: (i) in 2009, he was fined for producing dangerous drugs; (ii) in 2014, he was fined for producing dangerous drugs; (iii) in 2015, he received four months’ imprisonment for numerous fraud offences; (iv) in 2015, he received 12 months’ probation for producing dangerous drugs; (v) in 2015, he was fined for a Commonwealth offence of obtaining services by promise; (vi) in 2016, he received six months imprisonment for fraud and wilful damage; (vii) in 2016, he received nine months imprisonment for receiving tainted property; (b) Several of the convictions above are for ‘disqualifying offences’, including stealing, fraud, wilful damage and receiving trained property. (c) Mr Eldridge was 32 years of age when he was convicted for his last criminal offence seven years ago. He was therefore not a young man. (d) Mr Eldridge’s convictions for dishonesty are particularly concerning. DTMR’s suitability assessment guide relevantly states, “someone with offences for unauthorised dealing with shop goods, theft, stealing and fraud would not be appropriate to hold towed vehicles and personal property left inside them”. (e) Mr Eldridge’s drug convictions are concerning, particularly in the context of his recent convictions for drug driving offences. (f) Mr Eldridge’s traffic history is also concerning because: (i) from 2001 to 2002, he accrued 40 offences, including drug driving, speeding and unlicensed driving; (ii) his license has been suspended or disqualified on 18 occasions; (iii) his offending is persistent and indicates a disregard for road rules; (iv) he was convicted for drug driving on the following dates: A. 6 July 2018 (which he committed whilst driving a tow truck); B. 4 July 2018; C. 8 February 2016; 6 Respondent’s Outline of Submissions, 10 January 2014. -- 5 of 12 -- 6 D. 19 April 2015. (v) he has seven speeding infringements since 2017. He committed the most recent in 2022; (vi) Mr Eldridge committed offences against the TT Act, namely: A. on 14 June 2021, he contravened s 13(1)(b) of the TT Act by working as an uncertified tow truck assistant; and B. on 7 January 2018, he committed an offence by towing a vehicle with an uncertified passenger in his tow truck. (g) Section 4C(1)(e) of the TT Act requires that the CE must have regard to whether the person has previously had a driver’s certificate cancelled. On 18 August 2018, Mr Eldridge’s certificate was cancelled due to a drug driving conviction. (h) Conditions cannot ameliorate concerns as to whether Mr Eldridge is an appropriate person to hold a certificate. Section 14A(3) mandates that the chief executive must not grant the application if it is not satisfied that the applicant is an appropriate person to hold a certificate. (i) Mr Eldridge could have abided by conditions before bringing his application to the Tribunal but chose not to do so. (j) DTRM cannot monitor or enforce the conditions Mr Eldridge proposes. Cannabis prescription [22] Concerning Mr Eldridge’s cannabis prescription, DTMR submits that driving with cannabis present in his blood or saliva contravenes s 79(2AA) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld). It contends that the mere presence of cannabis is sufficient to constitute an offence. It is not necessary to be under the influence.7 [23] DTMR relies on a statement by the Australian Government Therapeutic Goods Administration, to advance propositions that: (a) patients ought not to drive machinery while being treated with medicinal cannabis; and (b) measurable quantities of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol – the main psychoactive substance in cannabis) can be detected in urine many days after the last dose. It may take up to five days for 80 percent of the dose to be excreted. [24] Similarly, DTMR relies on information provided on the Queensland Health website to advance propositions that: (a) cannabis use effects a person’s ability to drive. (b) there is no specific concentration of cannabis that can be identified as an indicator of impairment. 7 McLennan v The Commissioner of Police [2017] QDC 217. -- 6 of 12 -- 7 (c) it is illegal for any patient being treated with medicinal cannabis containing THC to drive while undergoing treatment. (d) THC is the main psychoactive component of cannabis. [25] There is no evidence from Mr Eldridge’s medical practitioner to support his contention that he consumes cannabis sparingly, or what the term ‘sparingly’ means. [26] If the applicant is driving with THC present, he is not satisfactorily performing the activities authorised under a certificate because he would be committing an offence. Alternatively, if Mr Eldridge decides not to consume cannabis, there is no evidence of other steps he has taken to address his PTSD, which is the condition that caused him to consume cannabis. The Hearing [27] The Review proceeded to a hearing on 22 May 2024. Mr Eldridge gave evidence and was cross examined by the respondent’s legal representative. Mr Eldridge’s viva voce evidence largely aligned with the statements he made in his affidavit dated 20 September 2023, except for two notable deviations which I will address in more detail below. [28] Mr Eldridge told the Tribunal that from his next appointment with his doctor on 22 May 2024, he intended only to take CBD tablets that did not contain THC. He has been working closely with his doctor to reduce his reliance on THC. [29] Presently he is using 10 grams of cannabis every eight or nine days, which is less than his weekly prescription limit of 10 grams every five days. He is currently not being treated for PTSD because the condition is “under control”. The above usage equates to about 4g of cannabis every seven days. He will not get behind the wheel of a truck if he “feels affected”. He drives two to three days in a course of an ordinary week. He waits 24 hours before driving after consuming cannabis because a “police officer told [him] it is out of your saliva” after that time. [30] Mr Eldridge tendered into evidence a paper by DTMR titled ‘Cannabis and driving in Queensland – Community consultation’.8 On page 3, concerning medicinal cannabis, it states: Medicinal cannabis products may contain delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD); Depending on a person’s medical condition, they may be prescribed a THC, CBD, or THC/CBD combination medication; Their prescriber and pharmacist should advise if their medication has THC. Currently, it’s not legal to drive in Queensland with THC in your system. [31] Mr Eldridge called his employer Matthew Cowton as a witness, who gave the following evidence: (a) he has owned the tow truck business that employs Mr Eldridge for about 14 years; (b) at traffic accidents Mr Eldridge puts people first; 8 Exhibit 2. -- 7 of 12 -- 8 (c) Mr Eldridge goes above and beyond his responsibilities; (d) he is aware that Mr Eldridge consumes medicinal cannabis; (e) he accommodates Mr Eldridge’s requests not to drive after consuming medicinal cannabis. Mr Eldridge tells him he cannot work about two to three days a month. He takes “day here, a day there”. He has no issue accommodating such requests because Mr Eldridge is a contractor not a wage driver; (f) there are months where Mr Eldridge did not take any days off; (g) there are apps and devices in his tow trucks that can be used to monitor speed; (h) he asked Mr Edridge to attend the accident that led to his conviction for working as an uncertified tow truck assistant. Mr Eldridge’s attendance was for the limited purpose of bringing him a truck. Mr Eldridge threw a wheel strap on the truck; (i) Mr Eldridge’s income would be greater by about $1000 per week if he had his certification and was permitted to attend accidents. [32] When cross examined by DTMR’s legal representative, Mr Cowton said: (a) he usually works alongside Mr Eldridge; (b) Mr Eldridge consistently works five days per week. He is on call every second weekend; (c) Mr Eldridge has had good driving history until recently, he has had a couple of speeding tickets. He is aware of Mr Eldridge’s drug driving offences. (d) he last looked at Mr Eldridge’s criminal history five or six years ago. Consideration [33] The fundamental issue in this review is whether Mr Eldridge is an appropriate person to hold a certificate within the meaning of s 4C of the TT Act. Section 14A(3) of the TT Act is expressed in mandatory terms. Therefore, if the Tribunal decides that Mr Eldridge is not an appropriate person to hold a certificate, it must confirm DTMR’s decision. [34] For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that Mr Eldridge is an appropriate person to hold a certificate. In reaching that conclusion I am required to consider the following matters set out at s 4C of the TT Act The person’s criminal history [35] Mr Eldridge has a lengthy but dated criminal history. Seven years have passed since his last criminal conviction. The absence of recent criminal convictions lends credibility to Mr Eldridge’s claim that he has ‘turned over a new leaf’ and stopped committing crimes. The person’s traffic history [36] Mr Eldridge has committed traffic offences as recently as 2022. I reject the submission advanced on Mr Eldridge’s behalf that his traffic history is unremarkable. Whilst Mr Eldridge has no offences for high range speeding, drink driving or dangerous or careless operation of a motor vehicle, his drug driving offences are serious and -- 8 of 12 -- 9 concerning. The remainder of Mr Eldridge’s traffic offending is less serious, but it is ‘persistent’. [37] Additionally, I do not accept Mr Eldridge’s contention that he is more likely to commit an infraction than an ordinary person who spends less time on the road. In my view that submission indicates Mr Eldridge lacks insight about the higher standards of conduct expected of professional drivers. As a professional driver, Mr Eldridge ought to have been alert to the risk of speeding. He should have been particularly diligent about implementing practices or procedures to reduce that risk. It is apposite to note that Mr Cowton gave evidence that there are devices in his trucks which notify the driver when speed limits are exceeded. Mr Eldridge did not avail himself of those devices. [38] In his affidavit, Mr Eldridge deposed that his three speeding offences from 2017 to 2018 occurred largely because of the seriousness of the accidents he was attending. Whilst he accepted that it was never okay to speed, he also deposed that there ‘are times in the industry when personal judgement is required’, such as when an accident is ‘quite serious’. In those moments he ‘has a moral duty to the victims and bystanders to attend as efficiently as possible’. At the hearing, however, Mr Eldridge said: (a) he acquired the three speeding offences in 2017 and 2018 whilst driving a tow truck, but not while speeding to an accident; (b) he denied that he would speed to get to an accident; (c) he has no knowledge about the seriousness of an accident until he gets there; (d) he was unsure why his affidavit deposes to incurring speeding tickets whilst rushing to the aid of members of public because he has never received a speeding ticket in such circumstances. [39] Mr Eldridge could not provide any credible explanation for why his oral evidence diverged so significantly from what he deposed in his affidavit. The divergence causes me to doubt the sincerity of Mr Eldridge’s assertion that he would not speed to an accident if he thought the circumstances justified doing so. It also causes me to have concerns about his credibility generally. In summary, I find that Mr Eldridge lacks appropriate regard for the laws governing Queensland roads. Whether a person has been charged with or convicted of an offence against the Act or a disqualifying offence [40] Mr Eldridge has numerous fraud, stealing and wilful damage convictions, which are disqualifying offences for the purposes of the TT Act. However, they were not committed whilst he held a certificate.9 [41] More concerningly, Mr Eldridge committed offences against the TT Act. In respect of the offence of working as an uncertified tow truck assistant, I reject Mr Eldridge’s submission that his conduct did not diminish public confidence in the industry because he displayed comradery and a willingness to be part of a team. Whilst I accept Mr Eldridge was motivated by the desire to assist his colleague, I do not consider that contravening the TT Act was justified in circumstances where there simply was no emergent reason for him to attend the accident. Further, Mr Cowton told the Tribunal 9 TT Act, Schedule 2 (adopting the definition of ‘disqualifying offence’ in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), schedule 4. -- 9 of 12 -- 10 that Mr Eldridge “threw a wheel strap on the truck”. Therefore, Mr Eldridge’s attendance at the accident went beyond the limited purpose of bringing Mr Cowton a truck. He actively participated in the recovery of the damaged vehicle. Whether a person holds a licence or certificate that has been cancelled, and if so, why it was cancelled [42] On 6 July 2018, Mr Eldridge committed the offence of ‘Drive while a relevant drug is present’, which caused his certificate to be cancelled. I have expressed my views about the seriousness of that offence earlier in this decision. Whether the person is capable of satisfactorily performing the activities authorised under a licence or certificate including because of any known medical condition or physical mental incapacity [43] By his own account, Mr Eldridge has diagnoses of PTSD and anxiety. There is an absence of medical evidence to support his contentions that: (a) his PTSD has resolved; and (b) CBD is a suitable alternative treatment to medicinal cannabis containing THC. [44] In his affidavit, Mr Eldridge deposed at [73] that his PTSD symptoms are ‘very minor in terms of severity’ and are infrequent. That assertion contrasts with his viva voce evidence that his PTSD has completely resolved and that he was prescribed medicinal cannabis only for anxiety. [45] It was Mr Eldridge’s poor mental health that caused him to consume cannabis which ultimately led to convictions for drug driving. Accordingly, in the absence of cogent medical evidence that Mr Eldridge has appropriately treated his poor mental health, I am unwilling to find that he is capable of satisfactorily performing the activities authorised under a certificate. [46] In his affidavit, at [42], Mr Eldridge accepts that cannabis can remain in his system for days. Despite this he chooses to only wait 24 hours for cannabis to leave his system before driving. The statement by the Australian Government Therapeutic Goods Administration indicates that it may take up five days for 80 percent of a dose (of cannabis) to be excreted. In contrast to Mr Edridge’s claim that he drives two to three days per week, Mr Cowton gave evidence that Mr Eldridge “consistently works five day a week”, only tells him he “isn’t able to work 2-3 days a month” and that he takes a “day here and a day there”. I prefer Mr Cowton’s evidence to that of Mr Eldridge because of the inconsistencies between Mr Eldridge’s viva voce and written evidence. [47] The above evidence, considered in its totality, causes me to conclude that it is very likely that Mr Eldridge has been driving with THC in his system. Additionally, it is concerning that Mr Eldridge considered 24 hours to be an appropriate waiting period because a police officer told him so. In my view, a conscientious driver would have consulted a medical practitioner and undertaken drug testing, to determine with precision the amount of time TCH remained in his system after consuming cannabis. In a previous unsuccessful review brought by Mr Eldridge, this Tribunal aptly observed:10 10 Eldridge v Department of Transport and Main Road [2019] QCAT 57 [30]. -- 10 of 12 -- 11 … Given the difficulties experienced by the Applicant in initially obtaining approval for the grant of a tow truck driver certificate (July 2017), the Applicant should have been fastidious regarding his future need to abstain from all drugs, lest any further convictions deprive him of the right to continue as a regulated tow truck driver. Yet the Applicant has not been fastidious and has let his guard down. [48] Plainly, even now, Mr Eldridge has not been fastidious about minimising the risk of driving with THC in his system. [49] In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond,11 the High Court considered the expression ‘fit and proper person’, which is analogous to the appropriate person test in the TT Act. Toohey and Gaudron JJ said: the expression “fit and proper person, standing alone, carriers no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and ends to be served by those activities. The concept of “fit and proper” cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive, but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely further conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question. [50] Cognisant of the ratio in Bond, I make the following findings: (a) Plainly, Mr Eldridge has historically engaged in improper conduct. The evidence tends to indicate that he continues to engage in improper conduct by continuing to expose himself to the risk of driving with THC in his system. (b) Mr Eldridge’s criminal and traffic history and his untreated PTSD and anxiety would not inspire members of the community with confidence that he will not continue to engage in improper conduct. [51] Finally, I am not satisfied that there is any condition that will mitigate the risk of Mr Eldridge speeding or driving with cannabis in his system. The success or efficacy of any condition ultimately depends on the willingness of a person to comply with it. Mr Eldridge has not demonstrated the capacity to stop consuming THC for any sustained period. Also, he has an extensive history of breaking laws, rules, and regulations. Accordingly, I have little confidence that Mr Eldridge will comply with any condition that this Tribunal imposes. [52] Ultimately, I find that Mr Eldridge is not an appropriate person to hold a certificate within the meaning of s 4C of the TT Act. Accordingly, I confirm DTMR’s decision. I am mindful that the Tribunal’s decision in this instance will have a deleterious impact on Mr Eldridge’s financial circumstances and his personal wellbeing. However sympathetic I might be to those circumstances; they cannot take precedence over the preservation of public safety in the performance of tow truck services. 11 (1990) 170 CLR 321, 380 (‘Bond’). -- 11 of 12 -- 12 Application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) [53] The Tribunal must apply the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HR Act’) when reviewing the decisions of a ‘public entity’.12 DTMR is a public entity. Section 58 of the HR Act provides that it is unlawful for a public entity to act or make a decision in a way that is not compatible with human rights13 or in making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision.14 A decision is compatible with human rights if it does not limit a human right, or limits a human right only to the extent that is reasonably justifiable in accordance with s 13 of the HR Act. [54] Mr Eldridge desires a certificate for the purpose of attending tows that originate as accidents. Those jobs provide a higher level of renumeration. The Tribunal’s decision potentially limits Mr Eldridge’s property rights under s 24 of the HR Act. This is so because placing restrictions on the type of work Mr Eldridge is permitted to perform reduces his earning potential. It follows that his capacity to acquire property is also diminished. Nevertheless, I have considered relevant factors set out at s 13 of the HR Act, and I am satisfied that limiting Mr Eldridge’s right to property is reasonable and justifiable. [55] The TT Act plainly places paramountcy on protecting the community, especially crash victims who are particularly vulnerable. It follows that achieving that purpose necessarily limits human rights if doing so compromises the safety of the community. On balance, I consider the importance of protecting the community outweighs the limitation of Mr Eldridge’s property rights in this instance. 12 PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 188; Kracke v Mental Health Review Board v Ors (General) [2009] VCAT 646, [291]; PJB v Melbourne Health [2011] VSC 327. 13 HR Act, s 58(1)(a). 14 Ibid, s 58(1)(b). -- 12 of 12 --