Right to cross examine questioned

16th September 1966, Page 89

16th September 1966

Page 89

Page 89, 16th September 1966 — Right to cross examine questioned

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Keywords : Conscientious Objection, Conscientious Objector, Conscription, Military Sociology, Nonviolence, Ebbs, Examination, Cros

THE right of an objector to cros examine an applicant was raised at ti Metropolitan traffic court last week. L. 1 Ebbs of London sought to vary its licence by removing named custome from its conditions.

Representing the applicant, Mr. Fairservice suggested to the LA, 11/1 D. I. R. Muir, that the objectors had statutory right to cross-examine and 1 used as a basis for his argument a left from the Metropolitan traffic area. T1 letter advised the objectors, BRS, that such statutory right existed and it we on to say that the objectors had no right appeal to the Transport Tribunal. The lett dated June 27 1966, however, did advi the objectors that they could attend the publ inquiry to make representation.

Mr. Fairservice objected to any cros examination by Mr. R. Yorke, represer ing BRS, but was advised by the LA th cross-examination was being permitte Mr. Fairservice then advised his client at a customer witness in turn that tin should not reply to Mr. Yorke's questior

In reply to questions from the I., Mr. Ebbs pointed out that although h vehicles were more or less fully occupie he did have spare capacity. Four pote tial customers had supplied letters indic ting that they were prepared to use M Ebbs's transport if he could supply The removal of the named custome would have the effect of utilizing the spa capacity, it was claimed.

Mr. Yorke suggested to the LA tb. despite the ruling in the letter of Jut 27, the rules of natural justice requirc that a party in opposition should be givt the opportunity to cross-examine. F suggested that Mr. Fairservice's advia was thoroughly bad and although perhai suitable for some remote South America republic it was out of place in an Englis court.

Mr. Fairservice reiterated his previot claim that Section 176 (3Xb) of the 196 Act made it clear that there was no HO of cross-examination.

The LA granted a variation of the exis ing licence to cover the carriage of go& on behalf of a customer witness wh appeared in court, Castro (London) Ltd.

Right to cross examine questioned

Page 89

Tags