Now if this had been an amateur boxing match. . .
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
nQUENTLY Licensing Casebook is oted to hauliers who, by devious means, involve the nation in what is considered unnecessary expense. It is therefore a strange twist to find a vehicle operator who through no fault of his own is going to be involved in additional expense in making a fresh application.
The North-Western Traffic Commissioners were unable to agree on their decision on an application from Wallace Arnold Tours Ltd. In accordance with the terms of Section 153(3) of the Road Traffic Act the case must be reheard. This section reads: "Not less than two Commissioners shall be present at the hearing of an application, and if where an application is heard by two Commissioners only, there is a difference of opinion between them, the matter shall be reheard and determined by all the Commissioners."
The chairman, Mr. C. R. Hodgson, and Councillor A. Allen failed to agree. The applicant, and presumably the original 18 objectors, will now re-engage counsel. The rehearing will take place and there will result additional expense and inconvenience.
It is refreshing to hear that the Commissioners differed in their opinions. This shows that they were taking a lively interest in the proceedings. Arguments for and against had been convincing. If this had been an amateur boxing contest we would probably have said sincerely that a draw was a fair result. On reflection this could not happen in amateur boxing because the ABA would not let the contest begin without three adjudicators. One wonders why the MoT should legislate for such circumstances. So far the situation is ridiculous enough but what happens now? The case and objec tions have been put forward. Can anythini be added to what must have been very con vincing arguments at the hearing? Can nevi evidence be made available to sway either o the two Commissioners? If not, wha happens? The opinion of the third Corn missioner carries the day and this being tIT case why not send him a transcript and as1 for his opinion. That way, time and mone: would be saved.
I suggest a more satisfactory solutioi could be found by amending Section 153(3 to read—"Not less than three . . ." an appoint a reserve. Alternatively, "Wher an application is heard by two Commi sioners . . . the chairman shall have a del berate and a casting vote". After all, th chairman is the professional.