Securicor Appeal
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Do Not Open This Back Door" Plead Respondents
I were a legislator, I would be in tvour of making it compulsory to cash in arrnoured cars and prohibit ,m being carried in anything else," resident of the Transport Tribunal, Iubert HUB. said in London last when the Tribunal spent two days ig two appeals by Securicor, Ltd. 1bbert also queried whether the ing of cash required a carrier's e.
uricor were appealing against the of only 10 armoured vans by the opolitan Deputy Licensing Authority, ;ponse to an application to add 35 les to their London B licence. The d appeal was against the refusal to four Gravesend vehicles.
the appellants, Mr. J. G. S.
Q.C., said that the case was the ordinary type of haulage applii." His clients had a pool of trained experts in security, and they were .o provide uniformed trained guards ish in transit. This could be done in ary motorcars, but the undisputed lee was That it was much safer if Lked vans were used The only id of objection put forward by the ridents—Security Express, Ltd.— hat if granted there would be an ; of suitable transport facilities, but witnesses they had called had said they could not meet demands for ype of service.
it was conceded that there was a demand, then the only question is it in the interests of the public ally, that in the fight against crime, who were providing escort duty d have the protection of armoured [es? The Presidentwho made a'number of interjections—stated that the case turned on a very narrow point. Two or three witnesses at the most, on the evidence, could be prayed in aid as asking that their work be done in armoured vans. The case rested on a submission that the wish of the haulier to carry out the work in armoured vehicles should be taken into account. A vital point to be considered was, if the appellants were granted the full 35 vehicles, would they give an undertaking that they would not carry cash in private motorcars?
Mr. Hobley replied that the application was made in respect of a quantity of customers, and an undertaking would be given in respect of them. But there were a large number of others, for whom they were already doing work in private cars, in respect of whom further applications were pending. The wridertaking could not operate in respect of them because of the time lag in hearing them.
Remarked the President: "That is one of the difficulties of the licensing system."
Dealing with the Deputy Authority's decision, in which he stated that the application was "too ambitious," Mr. HobleY submitted that it was no concern of the Authority to .consider whether somebody who foresees at an early stage an enormous national demand had got to confine his application to the same scale as his competitors. He submitted that the Authority did not ask the correct question. The competitors should be borne in mind only when applications were. getting "near the line." The evidence was that everybody could expand.
Interjected the President: "In many respects, my view is that undercutting is a good thing."
For the respondents, Security Express, Mr. E. S. Fay, Q.C., said that upon the facts what had been said about the crime wave had been greatly exaggerated. The policy of the appellants had been to obtain customers by the free use of motorcars. They had built up their business in a phenomenal fashion" and had refused to abandon private cars as a means of increasing their business. If the appeal were allowed, Security Express would "go to the wall" if they did not adopt the same methods. The real motive was not one of safety, but rather the more mundane question of money. If such applications were granted, it wobld open a back door which should not be opened.
Concerning the second appeal, in respect of the Gravesend vehicles, Mr. Fay said that the application was not at all well thought out.
The tribunal's decision was reserved.
In an exclusive interview with The Commercial Motor after the hearing, Mr, 'Keith Erskine; managing director of Securicor, saidlhat if they lost this appeal, they would go to the Court of Appeal.