Influence of Challenged
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TIE extent to which a Licensing I Authority's decision could be afluenced by representations made by non-objector was challenged by a 4inistry of Transport inspector, Mr. V. Tudor Davies, after hearing the ppeal of Mr. Harry Brown, Sparkhill, tirmingham, against the West Midland .icensing Authority's refusal to grant im certain modifications to a group of xcursions and tours.
The Minister of Transport has irdered a re-hearing of the applicaion, at which the party who made the epresentation, Allenways, Ltd., will be ;iven the opportunity of appearing as .n objector.
The modifications under appeal conerned an additional picking-up point ,d the introduction of two extra tteursions to Anglesea and Burnhamm-Sea. Smith's Imperial Coaches, Ad., appeared as objectors at the ,ppeal, which was heard in firmingtam in September, and Ribble Motor Iervicest Ltd., Scout Motor Services, Ad., and W. C. Standerwick, Ltd., were epresented as interested parties.
[At the hearing of the application, Allenways, Ltd., applied for a discretionary locus to object on the ground that they operated a group of excursions and tours with a picking-up point similar to that requested by Mr. Brown, The Authority gave them an opportunity of making representations before his decision was reached, but as it was "by way of submission" it was not subject to cross-examination.] Mr. J. Else, for Mr. Brown, objected' o the representation made by Allenvays, Ltd., on the ground that it ;onstituted evidence which was not sus ceptible to cross-examination. Although the Authority said that the representation was "by way of submission," he had undoubtedly attached importance to it.
In recommending that the appeal be allowed in respect of the additional tours, Mr. Davies observed that, in his opinion, Allenways: representation came "within the meaning of evidence, and shows the danger that might arise when, technically speaking, an objectoi has no locus by being out of time."
Asking how far the Authority was influenced by the representation, Mr. Davies quoted from the proceedings of the application where the Authority had pointed out to Mr. Else that he was "required to have regard to services of people who may not be objecting to the case."
"It would appear, therefore," said Mr. Davies, "that the Licensing Authority was fully seized of its inadmissibility as evidence and gave the matter its proper and appropriate assessment."