' Hopeless Miscarriage of Justice' Claimed in Appeal THE Transport Tribunal,
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
sitting in London on Tuesday, was asked to reverse a decision of the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, in which he revoked an A licence of R. Martin and Sons Ltd., of Gateshead, and, at the same time, refused an application by the company for a new A licence on expiry of an existing licence in respect of five vehicles. After hearing the appeal, The Tribunal reserved its decision.
Mr. R. M. Yorke, for the appellant, said that the case was in an almost incredible muddle—" almost as muddled a case as you have ever seen ". This was partly the fault of the appellant, but very largely the fault of the Licensing Authority, he said The application, Mr. Yorke continued, was for a different normal User from that under which the vehicles had been authorized. There had admittedly been illegal running in the past, and the application was to put "a disorderly house in order ", . During the course of the hearing the Licensing Authority had indicated .orally that he wanted to take some sort of action under Section 178 of the Act. The application was adjourned; no proper, formal notice was given. The matter was resumed as the continuation of the hearing of the application" and then suddenly, on his own motion, the Licensing Authority took up another application by another company—P. G. Walton and Co. Ltd.—for a B licence, and there were documents before the Tribunal which were nothing at all to do with the appeal ". The matter was yet again adjourned, and the Authority said that he was going to take certain matters into account and "delivered himself of a rather long harangue against hauliers generally, and all sorts of people who have nothing to do with it, and then he said he would adjourn the matter until later that day ". Mr. Yorke said that the matter was never heard until a reserved decision was given, which was now the subject of the appeal, in which the Authority revoked the existing licence and refused to grant a new one. Added Mr. Yorke: "I cannot find proper judicial words to describe what happened. There was clearly a hopeless miscarriage of justice in that three eases were muddled up together." Mr. Yorke pointed out that the licence was due to expire at midnight on the night it was purported to be revoked, and therefore. in any case, he was revoking something which simultaneously had come to an end, In view of this, the Tribunal, because of previous appeal judgments, might think that there was no point in going into the rights and wrongs of the revocation. The Tribunal indicated that it wished to hear all the facts and Mr. Yorke said that a Mr. P. G. -Walton held the shares in the appellant company. Mr. Walton, who had operated a haulage business of his owia for many years carrying steel for Consett Iron Company, was under the impression that when the purchase was completed he could operate the vehicles (which had a user of agricultural products and flour etc.) carrying steel, as he had always done, for Consett Iron Co, He had filled in blank forms of application to change the normal user. but it seemed that the then secretary of the Road Haulage Association in Newcastle had forgotten or failed to make the application. Mr. Yorke submitted that, if anything, the licence should have been suspended, in accordance with previous decision of the Tribunal that suspension was a sufficient penalty for misdemeanours of this sort.
There was ample evidence of a need for the vehicles, including a letter from thq Consett Iron Co. Mr. Walton had never, at any time, hidden the fact that he was carrying steel on the vehicles, Judgment was reserved.