"Previous Conduct ": Applicants Must Have a Fair Chance
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ADECISION to refuse an application for a licence on the ground of the applicant's previous conduct should be reached only after he his had the fullest opportunity to explain or mitigate his conduct.
In laying down this principle, the Appeal Tribunal adds: "Previous conduct which should be regarded as justifying the grave decision to refuse the grant of a licence should at least be of a kind that would justify a Licensing Authority in taking action to suspend or to revoke a licence" uncle' the proviso to Section 13(1) of the 1933 Act.
Where a licensee has been punished for a breach of the 1933 Act, the Tribunal does not think that, unless the offence was so serious as to be deserving of immediate action under Section 13, the conviction should be made the basis, more than a year later, for the refusal of a licence, particularly where no action has been taken under that section.
The Tribunal agrees, however, that certain conduct may merit the suspension or revocation of a licence, as well as ,criminal proceedings, and that it may justify the refusal of a subsequent application.
This was not held to be the case in the appeal of Western Haulage Con• tractors (Plymouth), Ltd., and the Tribunal has reversed the Western Licensing Authority's decision to refuse the company a Contract A licence for 20 vehicles to be used on work for Plymouth Corporation, because of certain past offences.
The Licensing Authority based his decision on three matters of fact. The first was a warning given in December, 1947, to the company against the consequences of using unauthorized vehicles. The second was the company's conviction in March, 1949, on 15 charges of using unauthorized vehicles to carry for hire or reward, and on 10 charges of contravening the conditions of Contract A licences. Fines totalling £25 were imposed for all these offences. and the company had to pay £10 10s. costs. Thirdly, the appellant used unauthorized vehicles on haulage work for Plymouth Corporation during April this year, while the application for a Contract A licence was pending.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant was made fully aWare that the 25 convictions in March, 1949, would be considered by the Licensing Authority. Consequently, no attempt was made by the company to mitigate the convictions.
Refusal Not Justified
The appeal was entitled to succeed on that ground alone, but the Tribunal found that the previous conduct of the appellant, which was impugned by the Licensing Authority in his decision, was riot, taken as a whole, sufficiently grave to justify the complete refusal of the application. The fines imposed were small and the offences were apparently not considered by the Licensing Authority to merit the suspension or revocation of the licences then held.
The use of unauthorized vehicles for Plymouth Corporation, while an application for a Contract .A licence was pending, was wrong and warranted criminal proceedings, but in the Tribunal's view there were mitigating circumstances which took the company's action outside the range of conduct which, under section 7 (1) of the Act, would make it unfit to receive a licence.
An appeal by Messrs. W. J. Pratt against a decision of the Scottish Licensing Authority will, be heard by the Appeal Tribunal at the Town House, Aberdeen, on July 27.