AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Should the Tribunal

28th May 1965, Page 57
28th May 1965
Page 57
Page 57, 28th May 1965 — Should the Tribunal
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?

LICENSING CASEBOOK

Hear Evidence?

By JOHN DARKER

THE Transport Tribunal, by its rules—whether self-imposed or not is a moot point—will seldom consider any evidence, documentary or otherwise, that was not heard ak the public inquiry by the Licensing Authority concerned. I can appreciate that this customary ruling is fair to the LA, who, after all, is not represented at the Tribunal. If it is a principal object of the Tribunal to reverse or modify an LA's decision which the Tribunal deems to be wrong, against the public interest, or not in accordance with the weight of evidence, it seems only reasonable that no fresh evidence should be considered.

On thc other hand. although I do not wish to appear to he biased against LAswho generally do a first-class job in an admirable way—so much hinges on Tribunal rulings that I feel there are strong arguments for permitting additional relevant evidence to be adduced before the Tribunal, The passage of time between public inquiry and Tribunal hearing can alter many circumstances.

If this is countered by the argument that such aninnovation would imply a rehearing of the application by the Tribunal, I would suggest that this does not necessarily follow. Often, a tiny piece of evidence, or a correction or amplification of a statement in evidence at the inquiry, could make a marked difference to the view taken by the Tribunal. But even if a substantial rehearing of the application by the Tribunal were involved, the Tribunal is surely concerned with truth, justice and, above all in the context of a highly practical activity such as transport, with common-sense rulings which accord with both the public interest and the views of responsible transport operators. I do not see why these desirable ends should conflict The Tribunal spends hours readine sometimes inaccurate or, 111 parts, indecipherable transcripts. It listens with commendable patience and forbearance to repetitive and often poorly presented arguments illy advocates who may not have been involved in the original inqui r.N., who may have no personal knowledge of the operators concerned, and whose interpretation of the evidence of witnesses, or of the reasons motivating, an LA's decision, may be all too humanly

Suppose a man who has been condemned to death is able to produce fresh evidence to prove his innocence. Would we not perpetrate a monstrous injustice if we said to him: " We're sorry, but this interesting fresh evidence cannot be considered, even though it might save you from hanging, because it was not heard at your trial!" Is my analogy fair?

i suggest that, just as there are known cases of miscarriages of justice, where evidence which would have saved a hanged man comes to light too late to save him, so there are cases dealt with by the Tribunal, where fresh evidence, or testimony, would almost certainly lead to a different decision. Were I a Licensing Authority I would not in the least mind my decision being tested by the Tribunal. I would feel as a qualified doctor or engineer feels if other qualified colleagues • investigate a technical or medical problem. No two maintenance engineers ever take precisely the same view as to the serviceability of, say. worn steering components. One man will say the vehicle is in good order for another 5,000 miles; another, that it should be docked—and the sooner the better. In a traffic court so much depends on the view taken by LAs-of the evidence of applicants and witnesses. The views. probably highly relevant, of customer witnesses who do not choose to attend public inquiries. Often go by the wayside. This is nevertheless relevant in the context of practical transport operations.

I am inspired to Write this because several recent Tribunal hearings would have taken, or might have taken, a different course if fresh evidence had been permitted. Even when appellants or respondents are personally present at Tribunal hearings, they must make all their submisions through their advocates —unless, as rarely happens, they are brave or foolhardy enough to present their appeal in person.

If the road haulage industry is to be governed in so many indefinable ways by Tribunal decisions, let us not be afraid to debate possible improvements in its administration. I, for ODIC, feel that hauliers would welcome a supreme body which takes more cognizance of spoken evidence by the parties .concerned-applicants, ohiectors and T.As—than by the line-by-line dissection of. often imperfectly typed or badly photographed transcripts, which cannot talk and which often assume quite literally enormous bulk.

"The Lor is a Hass." We cannot afford, in transport, to be subordinated to the lawyers' views as to what should, or should not, he allowed. Or can we?


comments powered by Disqus