AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

LICENCES FOR DUAL-PURPOSE VEHICLES.

7th February 1922
Page 8
Page 8, 7th February 1922 — LICENCES FOR DUAL-PURPOSE VEHICLES.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THERE will be considerableaveculation as to the effect of the judgment which was delivered by the Divisional Court on January 20th after hearing the appeal in Rex v, Wood and Others, Justices (ex parte Anderson). The appeal was by ihe partners in the Widnes Carrying Co., -who had' been convicted under Section 8 (3) of the Reads Act, 1920, in iespect of the use as a hackney carriage of a motor lorry, which had been licensed on the horse-power basis at a cost of 221, whereas a hackney carriage licence would have cost 236.

In order to appreciate the position, it is necessary to bear in mind the provisions of the s,econd schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, which is divided into six paragraphs, dealing with the following classes of motor vehicles:— (1 Motor-bicycles. (2 Invalid motor vehicles.

(3 Hackney carriages. (4, Vehicles of certain specified descriptions which are "used solely in the course of trade or in agriculture." Vehicles which arc "constructed or adapted for use and used solely for the conveyance of goods in the course of trade." (6) "Any vehicles other than those charged with duty under the foregoing provisions of this schedule."

(5)

It is also necessary to refer to Section 8 (3) of the Roads • Act, 1920, under which the proceedings had been taken, and which reads as follows:—

" Where a. licence has been taken out as for a vehicle to he used solely for a certain purpose, and the vehicle is at any time during the period for -which the licence is in force used for some other purpose, the person so using the vehicle shall, if the rate of duty chargeable in respect of a licence for a vehicle used for that other purpose is higher than the rate chargeable in respect of the licence held by, him, be liable to an Excise penalty of an amount equal to three times the difference between the duty actually paid on the licence and the duty payable on a licence appropriate to a vehicle used for that other purpose or twenty -pounds, whichever amount is the greater."

In thiscase it had been admitted that the motor lorry had, on the day in question, been used as a hackney carriage, and the only question was whether the licence which had been taken out on the horse-power basis under Paragraph 6 of the above schedule was a licence which had been taken out "as for a vehicle tofbe used solely for a certain purpose," and whether the lorry had been used for some other purpose. The court held that the licence had not been taken out in the way specified, and that, consequently, the conviction under the subsection could not be upheld. In doing so, they ieferred to the well-established rule of construction that a taxing Act must be construed strictly, and that if there were any uncertainty the construction must be adopted which waeFefavourable to the subject.

The Decision Summarized.

Put more coneisely, the decision was that, where a vehicle has been licensed on the horse-power basin under Paragraph 6 of the 2nd Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, the owner cannot be convicted under Section 8 (3) of the Roads Act, 1920, if he uses the vehicle as a hackney carriage, although ra • if it had been licensed as a hackney carriage the duty would have been greater.

Cases to Which the Decision Does Not Apply.

It seems to be clear that if the appellants had taken out the licence on the unladen weight under Paragraph 5, and had used the vehicle as a hackney carriage with such seating capacity that the licence duty under Paragraph 3 would have been greater than the duty actually paid, they would not have been suctessful. In that case, the licence would have been taken out " as for a vehicle to be used , solely for a certain purpose," which would have brought the appellants within the sub-section.

Possible Prosecutions Under Other Sections.

It does not necessarily follow that, because the appellants in the present case were successful, another owner in the same circumstances might not be prosecuted successfully if the proceedings were taken under some other section than Section 8 (3) of the Roads Act, 1920. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Avory threw out the suggestion that a charge might be preferred under Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1920, for keeping an unlicensed motor vehicle. That section provided that on and after January 1st, 1921, there should be charged, levied, and paid in Great Britain and Ireland, in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles used on public roads duties of Excise at the rates specified in the 2nd Schedule to the Act. It may be argued that a vehicle which is being used as a hackney carriage cannot be regarded as being licensed in accordance with the above section, unless it is licensed at the ratespecified for hackney carriages in Paragraph 3 of the Schedule, notwithstanding that a licence has been taken out under Paragraph 6. Another section of the Roads Act, 1920, which may have to be considered. in connection with this cluestion is Section 5 (3), which provides that where any vehicle in respect of which any licence has been issued is altered after the licence has been issued• in such manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a licence at a higher rate of duty, or a licence of a different class is required the licence shall become void. The question which may arise is as to what amounts to an " altZration., ' in order to bring the vehicle within the section. Can it be said that the fitting of seats to a lorry amounts to an "alteration "1

Conclusion.

The conclusion which is arrived at is that, in spite of the success of the appeal, it is not at all clear that a lorry which has been licensed on the horse-power basis can be used as a hackney carriage if the duty based on the seating capacity is greater than the duty actually paid. It is clear that the owner cannot be convicted under Section 8 (3) of the Roads Act, 1920, but it is open to serious question whether he is not liable to be convicted under Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, either taken alone or in conjunction with I3ection 5 (3) of the Roads Act, 1920. The appeal has at least shown that the question of the licensing of dual-purpose motor vehicles is one of considerable complexity. trnfortunately, it is easier to point out the present defects than to suggest a remedy, which, while helping the man who uses a lorry occasionally as a hackney carriage, will not be unreasonably detrimental to the regular char-heba,ncs proprietor.

Tags

Organisations: Divisional Court

comments powered by Disqus