The Lie-detector
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Political Commentary By JANUS
SENATOR McCARTHY might not be a bad choice for one or other of the vacancies shortly to occur in the ranks of the Licensing Authorities. The new Transport Bill may in some respects add to their problems, and if a lie-detector be thought suitable for testing an ambassador it may also save a lot of trouble with applicants and their witnesses in the traffic courts.
A Licensing Authority now has power to suspend or revoke. a licence where it becomes known that, in the process of getting it, the applicant or somebody on his behalf has (after the passing of the Act) said something that was not true, or expressed an "intention or expectation" that was not fulfilled. The use of the new power may at times be distasteful, and the Authority may wish he had a machine that would pinpoint the lie at the time it was uttered.
To be completely equipped, of course, he would also need a clairvoyant's crystal or an ouija board with which to estimate whether the applicant's intentions or expectations were destined to be fulfilled. It might even be necessary to have some knowledge of the technique used by the psycho-analyst in probing the subconscious mind, as suspension or revocation may take place even when the applicant was not aware that the statement was false. .
One may say that the sub-section which gives the Licensing Authority his new power is a little harsh. Not a great deal of discussion was devoted to it by Parliament. The most extended reference came unexpectedly when the ,subsection was invoked as a means for preventing the holders of special A licences from abandoning the type of traffic that they originally proposed to carry.
. Broken Promises For this purpose the sub-section may be desirable. Buyers of transport units or of the special companies to be set up must accept certain obligations in return for the freedom from the 25-mile limit that they alone will have until the end of next year. It is difficult to understand why the applicant for a normal licence should be treated in the same way. His lies and broken promises can do less harm when he has no vestige of a monopoly. It should have been sufficient to give the Licensing Authority power to act when the application came up for renewal.
In this one sub-section alone there are many points
likely to provoke a good deal of argument until in their turn they become case-hardened, after which nothing short of another Act of Parliament will affect their interpretation. On the other hand, not every ambiguity in the wording or the syntax will necessarily give rise to legal disputes,-as the intended meaning is clear beyond
reasonable doubt. , As the Bill stands, the penalty for a false statement may be exacted even if it were not material to the Licensing Authority's decision. It is probable that in practice the Authority will use his discretion to cover this point. There will be degrees in mendacity, rather like those enumerated by Touchstone, and the Authority will learn to tolerate the white lie.
Somewhat more difficult to define is the extent to which the applicant will be held responsible for every
false word or false dream that is given expression in the licensing court. He is liable for any statement that he "made or procured to be made for the purposes of his application." If he produces as witness a customer who has promised to find work for him, the applicant's future tenancy of his licence must depend upon whether or not the customer keeps his promise. But the witness may be carried away by the occasion, and quite gratuitously enlarge upon his hopes and ambitions. Such evidence may be an important factor in the subsequent decision to grant a licence. Should the witness not prove as good as his word, could it be held that the applicant must pay the price? He may reasonably argue that he did not "procure to be made" the more romantic of the witness's statements. The witness may even have volunteered to come to the traffic court.
Closing a Door The sub-section has been criticized, particularly by
hauliers, but they have been unsuccessful with the exception of one change in the wording. The statements for which licences may be suspended or revoked must have been made" after the passing of this Act." The impression that the phrase gives of firmly closing a door on the past conjures up an engaging picture of the licensing courts in the old days when men could lie and swagger and boast unchecked, rather like the Wild West before the coming of law and order. I should hesitate to suggest that the amnesty for past deviations has caused a great sigh of relief to go up from the road haulage industry. It is at least equitable that what is classified as a new infringement should not count against anybody who may have transgressed in the past.
It may be generally accepted that the deliberate untruth deserves punishment. There will not be the same measure of agreement over the words "whether to his knowledge or not." It seems hard that a man who has made an honest attempt to describe the business, he proposes to operate, and who has succeeded in persuading the Licensing Authority that he deserves a licence, should still run the risk of losing it at any time as a result of circumstances over which he may have no control.
Elsewhere in the licensing clause advantages are given
to the applicant which may compensate for what looks like the harshness of the non-fiction sub-section. The welfare of the customer is given priority over that of the haulier, a provision that on the whole should favour the newcomer. The onus of proof that there are grounds for an objection now lies with the objector, although presumably he is beyond the reach of punishment for his own false statements or over-great expectations. He may "to such extent as may in all the circumstances appear proper" be called upon to compare his
rates with those to be charged by the applicant. Certainly it would be unfair if an applicant could quote proposed rates in support of his case and escape any penalty for subsequently revising them. To that extent the non-fiction clause is justified and should help existing hauliers, although for their part they would gladly forfeit the protection in return for the scrapping of the charges provision.