1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162 
ICs' verdicts vulnerable after 'Human Ribts' win
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• by Dominic Perry A Lancashire-based haulier has wort an important victory in the Court of Appeal that could have a serious Implications for future Public Inquiries.
Burscough-based haulier David Crompton had challenged the decision of both North Western Traffic Commissioner Beverley Bell and the Transport Tribunal to revoke his Operator's Licence, after they held that he had lost his repute.
The case dates back to June 2001 when Crompton appeared before the North Western OTC Mark Hinchliffe who revoked his licence following tacho offences ( CM 511 July 2001).
After the hearing. Crompton was involved in an incident where he insulted traffic examiner Karen Fare and his brother Gordon threatened the OTC and a CM reporter.
Although the licence was later reinstated by the Transport Tribunal, David Crompton was taken to a further PI by TC Bell. who held he had lost his repute because of the incident at the previous inquiry, despite his apologising both In a letter and by phone to Farr. Her decision to revoke the licence was later upheld by the Transport Tribunal.
However, Crompton challenged this decision in the Court of Appeal on the grounds of human rights, arguing that Bell had not delivered a sufficiently balanced judgement at the Pl. He claimed that the punishment of the loss of his licence, and therefore his livelihood, for a non-transport offence was out of proportion.
In the judgment, Lord Justice Kennedy criticises TC Bell: 'She...failed to give mature consideration to the question of whether that behaviour really did demonstrate...a loss of good repute, bearing in mind the inevitable consequences of such a finding, and the need for proportionality.
"The inappropriateness of her approach does seem to me to be most clearly demonstrated by her refusal to accept that by writing as he did to Miss Farr, and by apologising to the TC herself, the operator had done enough to demonstrate that by [then] he was once again a person of good repute."
Lord Justice Kennedy also hits out at the Transport Tribunal, saying that although it thought the judgment could be viewed as harsh, it failed to question it.
Effectively, this means that Ms will have to consider their verdicts more carefully, says Crompton's lawyer John Parsons: "TCs should perform a balancing act when deciding what good repute amounts to—there must be a serious offence before them to find it's been lost."
"Under the human rights legislation these days, you have to be very, very careful how you interpret the law. If your decision means that a man is going to lose his livelihood, clearly that's a fundamental possession that the act tries to safeguard."
A jubilant Crompton says he Is now considering suing the Department for Transport for loss of earnings. He says: "We used to do a lot of subcontracting work but since all this has happened, It's nearly dropped right off. For instance, In 2001, we did £441,000 of subbing work and then in 2002, this dropped to £77,000.
"I'm quite angry—on several occasions the TC, OTC and the Transport Tribunal failed to do their jobs properly."
He says that the verdict may now pave the way for other hauliers who have lost their 0-licences in similar circumstances to challenge the decision.