Revocation Application Fails
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BELIEVED to be the first of its kind, an inquiry was held at Newcastleon-Tyne, on Monday, by the Northern
Licensing Authority to consider whether the original permit and substituted permit held by A. F. Wardhaugh, Ltd., 28 Side, Newcastle-on-Tyne, should be revoked. The application had been made by the British Transport Commission.
Mr. J. L. R. Croft, for the B.T.C., said that the grounds of the application arose partly out of a conviction against the company for using a vehicle outside 25 miles. The company had pleaded guilty and the maximum penalty of £20 had been imposed. Moreover, they had repeatedly and wilfully failed to keep and produce a register of journeys outside 25 miles.
Apart from the conviction, he would submit evidence that there had been continued and repeated failure to comply with the conditions of the permit which related to the keeping of a register of journeys.
Mr. G. H. Hutchinson, an inspector employed by the R.H.E., said he had made several visits to the company's premises to inspect the register of journeys and was told on each occasion that one was not kept, but would be made up in due course.
In reply to Mr, T. H. CampbellWard law. for Ward haugh's, Mr. Hutchinson agreed that he had interviewed only a minor official and
although he had seen Mr. R. A. Hunter, managing director of Wardhaugh's, on several occasions when he called, no approach had been made to Mr. Hunter, nor had the R.H.E. written to the company on the matter.
Mr. Wardlaw submitted that, so far as the question of failure to keep a register of journeys was concerned, the word " guilty " in Section 53(4) of the Transport Act, 1947, related to a conviction for breaches of the Act. It was no part of the duty of the Licensing Authority to adjudicate whether a breach of the permit conditions had taken place or whether or not the company were guilty.
The company would have to be guilty of a serious breach of licence and permit conditions before any revocation should take place. There was only one conviction recorded against them. On that occasion, a plea of guilty was tendered and the magistrates had not been given the facts.
There had been no proceedings at any time in respect of the second part of the application by the B.T.C.
In giving his decision not to revoke the permits, Mr. S. W. Nelson said he found it difficult to decide whether the conviction involved a serious breach of the law. "I think I should want more than one conviction of this kind," he said.
So far as the second part of the application was concerned, the Licensing Authority said "he was not quite so happy." If the Ministry examiners had been making the inspection, a letter would have been sent from his office, drawing the attention of the managing director to what was taking place, and, if the request was ignored, he would have taken a serious view of the matter. Bearing in mind that the company was now keeping a proper register and the assurance given by the managing director that this would continue, the permits would not be revoked,