AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

PREJUDICE, CLAIM APPELLANTS T HE Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority was prejudiced

26th October 1962
Page 11
Page 11, 26th October 1962 — PREJUDICE, CLAIM APPELLANTS T HE Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority was prejudiced
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Law / Crime

against an applicant from the start, Mr. C. R. Beddington told the Tribunal on Wednesday when he represented Wilson Singer, Ltd., of Hammersmith who were appealing against the deputy's decision refusing to place three minibuses, to be used as camera cars, on a B licence, and against the failure of the Authority to specify sufficient conditions on a licence that he granted, at the same time, for three vans to carry film and television equipment.

Mr. Beddington said that the Inquiry before the deputy was "thoroughly unsatisfactory." The deputy had been influenced by a certain obscurity in the presentation of the case—there were too many documents which seemed to " irritate " him—and there was a suggestion of illegal operations in the past.

The Inquiry had been soaked in an atmosphere of: "Here is an applicant who has no business to be asking for a licence—an outsider who has not complied with the ordinary rules of the game: who has done a "dirty trick" and gained some unfair advantage over the objectors. For that reason he should not be allowed the ordinary rights of an applicant."

When the appellants started business— carrying passengers and goods—they were advised by the ,L.C.C. that they required only a hackney and goods licence. The law on the matter was extremely difficult, Mr. Beddington said. A case was still before the divisional court on the matter and therefore it was wrong to impute any illegality on the part of the appellants. Two prosecutions against them had been dismissed with costs, There was sufficient evidence for wider conditions to be given to the vans granted. The camera cars had been used for hire and reward for some years. In the Securicor and Roy Bowles appeals the Tribunal had said that the carriage of goods in licensed vehicles could not be held against an appellant. It showed that there was a need for the vehicles.

Miss E. Havers, for the independent respondents, submitted that the evidence did not justify a grant of more than three vehicles. The Authority was entitled to say that there had been illegal use before the application, and he was entitled to disregard evidence based on that.

For the B.T.C., Mr. J. M. Timmons said that the vehicles, fitted out to carry a camera on their roofs, were clearly adapted to carry goods. Thus the previous carryings were illegal. The appeal was continued yesterday.


comments powered by Disqus