1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
ALL MY SINS REMEMBERED
Page 105
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NOTHING seems to annoy the Transport Tribunal more than an attempt to hoodwink it. It is usually made for one of two reasons: to cover up past misconduct or to get a licence or a variation which might not otherwise be granted. At times the Tribunal seems almost to show a preference for the honest rogue rather than the man who manipulates the evidence for his own ends while still keeping within the law. Some recent pronouncements from Watergate House are plainly intended as a warning not only that honesty is the best policy, but also that before the Tribunal
or in the traffic court honesty must be the only policy.
It is endearing but characteristic of the Tribunal to seek its doctrinal nourishment in unexpected pastures. Matrimonial cases usually arise from the desire of one party to surrender a licence rather than to win one. Nevertheless, it was a doctrine most frequently applied to matrimonial disputes which the Tribunal found most appropriate in its recent decision on an appeal against the agreement by the Eastern Licensing Authority to swith from Contract A to B licence two vehicles operated by F. J. and S. M. Papworth.
APPROPRIATE QUOTATION
The quotation found appropriate by the Tribunal was taken from a case decided in 1930 before the licensing system was established. "A judicial discretion", Lord Merrivale said at that time, "cannot be rightly exercised except upon due ascertainment of the relevant facts, and every interest involved is a proper matter for consideration. Upon these facts a judgment is to be formed in accordance with a statutory duty." Where there was a discretionary power, the Tribunal commented further, it was a condition of the exercise of that power that there should be complete frankness on the part of those who were asking for the exercise of that power.
Evidence from the two customers with whom Mr. and Mrs. Papworth had contracts left the Tribunal with the impression that they had all the facilities which they wanted and in the form in which they wanted them. Four other customers whom the respondents "ought not to have had" and one potential customer also gave evidence which in normal circumstances would have been sufficient to justify a grant. Unfortunately, proof of need was automatically proof of misconduct and this had to be taken into consideration before a decision was reached.
The Licensing Authority postponed the
effect of his grant for two months because of the unsatisfactory previous conduct. Possibly the Tribunal would have been prepared to accept this punishment as adequate. What it was certainly not prepared to treat so leniently was "the reticence of Mr. Papworth in disclosing his illegal operations and their extent". The details could have been supplied from the same source as the figures showing the amount of work done properly under the contracts. In cross-examination Mr. Papworth admitted only to the carriage of goods for two other customers. It was from other witnesses that the additional information was extracted.
The needs of potential customers had to be weighed not only against past illegalities but also against the lack of frankness. It did not appear to the Tribunal that the needs were "so pressing that they ought to be met by any haulier willing to meet them, however undeserving that haulier may be". The two months' delay imposed by the Licensing Authority was inadequate. The application should have been refused. Therefore the appeals were allowed.
FIRM REMINDER While expressing no opinion on the merits or demerits of the licensing system the Tribunal gave a firm reminder that as long as the Road Traffic Act 1960 remains law "we have to proceed on the basis that it is in the public interest that its provisions should be observed". In its judgment on another recent appeal by W. Keith and Son Ltd. the Tribunal pointed out that "the rewards of misconduct on the part of a haulier can be great and the chances of detection small". There was also an adverse effect on other hauliers, "the vast majority of whom are law-abiding and are entitled to protection from the misdoings of the less scrupulous".
All the same, the lesson to be drawn from the Papworth case is that candour even at the eleventh hour might have a beneficial effect. The lax haulier's instructions to his represen
tative might well conclude: "In thy orisons be all my sins remembered." The best advice to the haulier is, of course, not to be lax in the first case.
Sometimes the information withheld is not of past misdeeds but of future intentions. R. Oakey and Sons Ltd., operating six vehicles on A licence and eight vehicles on B licence from a base at Alvescot (Oxfordshire) asked the East Midland Licensing Authority for the transfer of seven of the B-licensed vehicles to a new licence. The remaining one was a "maintenance" vehicle. The reason given for the application was the difficulty caused by the limitations on the B licence. There were said to be occasions when longdistance traffic had to be collected on one vehicle and transferred to another and when work had to be refused because no properly licensed vehicle was available.
UNCONVINCING EVIDENCE In the course of adjudicating on a subsequent appeal the Tribunal did not find the customer evidence convincing. Suspicions were aroused, moreover, by the announcement at the opening of the appellants' case that it was being prosecuted in respect of only two of the seven original vehicles. The reduction, said the Tribunal, may have been designed to induce the respondents, Amey's Transport (Oxford) Ltd. and British Railways, to withdraw. "It certainly did not enhance the appellants' prospects of persuading us to allow the appeal."
The Tribunal examined the potential advantages of the switch from B to A licence other than those stressed in the evidence for the appellants. About 25 per cent of the revenue from the vehicles on A licence came from the London Brick Co. Ltd. and the earnings from this source had increased substantially. Neither of the two vehicles which it was now sought to upgrade were entitled to carry bricks. A favourable decision would allow them to serve the London Brick Co. Ltd. "and we have little doubt", said the Tribumil, "that this, is how such vehicles would be used". This would be to the detriment of other hauliers with no countervailing public benefit. There was no evidence of any shortage of facilities for the traffic.
The appeal was dismissed.