Political Commentary
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Deed Without a Name
By JANUS
LESS than a month ago, and not for the first time, , referred to the unvarying skill with which the Transport Tribunal were able to get at the heart of a case in a few well-chosen words. This tribute was made before my reading of the written judgment on the appeal by Mr. -K. A. Metcalfe against the revocation by the Northern Licensing Authority of two special A licences. Ever since, I have been trying to reconcile the fog of words in which the Tribunal have wrapped this case with their usual clarity and precision.
Mr. Metcalfe held five special A licences in addition to the two that were the subject of his appeal. Both had been substituted for two other vehicles without an increase in unladen weight, but the weight of the replacements was subsequently increased as a result of converting them from four-wheelers into six-wheelers. In neither case was the Licensing Authority informed until several months later, when an application was made for an ordinary A licence for the two vehicles.
Instead of the revocation ordered by the Authority, the Tribunal's decision was to suspend each licence for two months, after which the operator would be free to use the vehicles at least until the hearing of a pending application for an ordinary A licence. The Authority was enjoined to treat this application strictly on its merits, disregarding the fact that the operation of the vehicles under special A licences had been irregular.
The case might have settled a point that is baffling many operators. From time to time they will alter a vehicle in such a way as to increase the unladen weight, but they naturally do not wish to risk the loss of their licence. They would like to know whether they are entitled to make the alteration without consulting anybody else, whether they should give prior notice to the Authority, or whether they should tell him afterwards.
Even More Obscure
Several times in their written judgment the Tribunal seem on the point of giving what hauliers would regard as invaluable advice, but they end up by leaving the position even more obscure than when they began. There is a reference to the ubiquitous Section 9(4) of the Transport Act, 1953, on the strength of which the Authority took action, presumably because Mr. Metcalfe had not carried out his original statement of intention. There is also a reference to the Allinson case, which was also concerned with increases in unladen weight during the currency of a special A licence.
In that case, the Tribunal upheld the revocation by the Authority, and spoke in harsh terms of a "deliberate fraud." Mr. Metcalfe, in the opinion of the Tribunal, acted in good faith on what he thought to be the advice of the area secretary of his association. Because his " wrongdoing " was not deliberate, the milder penalty of a comparatively short suspension was thought just. Moreover, Mr. Metcalfe was regarded as having "purged his contempt." He was told to stand in the corner for a seemly interval, after which he was to be given exactly what he wanted.
If Mr. Metcalfe had broken the law, it seems odd that the Tribunal should have allowed him ultimately to keep the proceeds of his crime. The Tribunal do not hesitate to use harsh words when they are considered justified, and the furthest they would go in condemning Mr. Metcalfe B36 was to say that the operation of the vehicles under special A licence had been "irregular." The operation of the same vehicles under the same licence after the suspension ends will obviously not be "irregular," for the Tribunal said nothing about reducing the unladen weight.
It might appear that the real offence was not to notify the Authority that the weight of the vehicles had increased as a result of structural alterations. There is nothing in the written judgment to justify this interpretation. The Tribunal report without comment three points that arose during the discussion on the appeal. The area secretary had stated that for many years he had been of the opinion that there was no need to notify the Authority when alterations had increased the weight of a vehicle. Mr. Metcalfe, said the Tribunal, had honestly based certain practical conclusions upon this opinion. The area secretary had also said that, when asked about weight increases, his advice was no longer in accordance with the opinion he had once held.
Practical Conclusions
Although even this point is not clear, the inference is that the practical conclusions drawn by Mr. Metcalfe had been the cause of his difficulties. One may search the judgment in vain to find whether the Tribunal agree with the opinion originally expressed by the area secretary.
In a sense, the Tribunal were justified. They were dealing with the case of Mr. Metcalfe, and with that case alone. They were concerned only to know whether he had honestly received the wrong impression. Once they were satisfied about this, their sole concern was to establish what ought to be the punishment for the genuine mistake. As they had said in a previous case: "When the question is—what penalty should be imposed?—no one case can be an authority for another." They listened carefully to, but rejected, the argument on Mr. Metcalfe's behalf that an exception should be made for him because of the extreme inconvenience his customers would suffer if his licences were suspended even if for only a short time. Apart from the advice to the Authority to let bygones be bygones, the Tribunal, kept strictly to their terms of reference. We are not," they said, "concerned with any question other than the question whether the licences should have been revoked.?
The Tribunal have not always been so meticulously exclusive. They have occasionally allowed themselves the luxury of explaining the law, or of giving advice on the appropriate procedure. The Metcalfe case might have provided the opportunity for some practical guidance on what an operator should do when he wishes to increase the unladen weight of his vehicle. The written judgment does not provide much help. Even Mr. Metcalfe (now almost on the point of complete freedom) may have no very clear idea about exactly what he did that was wrong.
The ultra-cautious operator may feel that the only safe course is to notify his Authority at once if he has in mind any modification that may increase the weight of his vehicle. If universally adopted, this procedure might add alarmingly to the amount of paper work in traffic area offices. The requirements of Authorities vary in different parts of the country. There may in due course be a move towards standardization, but in the meantime hauliers might like to have established the extent to which they are legally obliged to give the appropriate notification.