COUNCIL TO PRINT A LICENCE!! – NO MORE
THE CROWN COURT DECISION Mr. Cartledge’s appeal against conviction was allowed: the Judge, sitting with two Magistrates, found that the applica- tion to renew had been refused: Mr. Cartledge had asked for a licence to take the place of his current licence on its expiry and had not been given what he had asked for.
THE REFUSAL TRIGGERED SECTION 77(2) OF LGMPA 1976 -
“If any requirement, refusal or other decision of a district council against which a right of appeal is conferred by this Act… makes it unlawful for any person to carry on a business which he was lawfully carrying on up to the time of the requirement, refusal or decision… … then, until the time for appealing has expired, or, when an appeal is lodged, until the appeal is disposed of or withdrawn or fails for want of prosecution… that person may carry on that business.”
BUT WE HAVE NOT DECIDED YET, SO WE HAVEN’T REFUSED!
The council said that section 77(2) was irrelevant. Since the renewal application had not been refused: on the date the appellant’s licence expired the council had yet to process his application.
Against that, it was submitted that to make sense of the appeal provisions in the LGMPA 1976, it is necessary to give the word “refusal” a less literal definition. Where an application to renew a licence is made prior to expiry, a failure to issue by the time it expires should be treated as a refusal in order to avoid absurd consequences which cannot have been the intention of Parliament.
WHAT DOES ‘ABSURD CONSEQUENCES’ MEAN?
It is a presumption of statutory interpretation that Parliament intends to act reasonably: see IRC v Hinchy [1961] AC 748 at p 767 per Lord Reid. In R v Central Valuation Officer [2003] UKHL 20 at 116, Lord Millet cited Hinchy and continued: “The Courts will presume that Parliament did not intend a statute to have consequences which are objectionable or undesirable; or absurd; or unworkable or impracticable; or merely inconvenient; or anomalous or illogical; or futile or pointless.”
The literalist construction of section 77(2) LGMPA as claimed in this appeal had a number of such consequences:
THIS CANNOT BE LOGICAL OR CORRECT!
A refused renewal application would be in a better position than a driver whose renewed licence is granted late; since the refused driver may continue to drive his vehicle for ‘the
JULY 2021
appeal period’ even after his licence expires; yet a driver who has applied to renew his licence but has not been given a decision in time would have to stop driving until the council looked at his application.
Even a driver whose licence is revoked would be better off than a driver who is simply waiting for a licence to be printed.
IT GETS WORSE!
If the council’s 5 September decision had been to refuse, he could have appealed the decision, but not have carried on pending the result of the appeal because – the council says – since 22 August he would not have been “lawfully carrying on his business up to the time of their decision”.
It was argued that it would be irrational had the decision been to refuse, to have the right to carry on working pending appeal, but to deny him that right if his application is refused after the licence expires, being unemployed just because the council has not done their job yet, is unlikely to have been the intention of Parliament.
CONCLUSIONS
Whether this decision is restricted to this case or is more generic, will depend on similar cases coming before the courts.
There is nothing unusual about a licensee who applies to renew a licence before it expires working whilst waiting. The fact that Section 17 of The Transport Act 1985 applies only to London would suggest Parliament is satisfied that outside London is already satisfactorily covered by right to appeal of the LGMPA 1976. It is unlikely that Parliament intended to create a North/South divide!
A street trader enjoys the same entitlement, regulated by the LGMPA 1982. Schedule 4, paragraph 6(10) which says: “If a licence-holder applies for renewal of his licence before the date of its expiry, it shall remain valid.”
Even the operator of a sex shop or lap dancing club has that security. Schedule 3, paragraph 11(1) of the LGMPA 1982 says: “Where, before the date of expiry of a licence, an application has been made for its renewal, it shall be deemed to remain in force notwithstanding that the date has passed until the withdrawal of the application or its determination by the appropriate authority.”
It would be odd indeed if Parliament intended a driver to be forced into unemployment while waiting for a licensing author- ity to reach a decision on the renewal of his licence, whilst giving the licensee of a lap dancing club the benefits of his licence for as long as the authority takes to make up its mind.
29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96
