.FAQS...FAQS...FAQS...FAQS
censed (or the suspension lifted) if the investigation does not reveal sufficient evi- dence to justify the earlier decision. Clearly, a suspension can simply be lifted which would lead to the driver being able to resume using his licence.
“… Accordingly, it would appear that any decision under s.61 must be to either sus- pend or revoke the licence, and once that decision has been made by the authority, no further action in relation to that licence can be taken, irrespective of whether it was an immediate suspension under s.61(2B) or a ‘normal’ suspension under s.61(1).”
Professor Roy Light, a barrister at St John’s Chambers in Bristol, wrote an article in Local Government Lawyer following the outcome of the Singh/Cardiff case; his views are parallel to those of James Button. “The pre-Singh practice of suspension of a licence pending the outcome of serious criminal charges may have been a reason- able one and was clearly a useful tool for councils to use. Now that suspension can no longer be used in this way, when would sus- pension be an appropriate sanction? Can suspension be used as a punishment?
“If on a consideration of the evidence the council decides that the driver can no longer be considered a fit and proper per- son then revocation would seem appropriate. The more serious the conduct, the more likely this will be. However, Singh J suggests that suspension may be appro- priate ‘even if misconduct has been established’ if something ‘less than com- plete revocation’
is appropriate and
suspension ‘will constitute sufficient sanc- tion in the interests of the public.’ What does this mean?
“It is clear that the aim of suspension is to protect the public (Leeds City Council v Hussain [2002]). It is not to punish the driv- er. Punishment in the form of retribution (legally sanctioned revenge) is therefore not a proper use of suspension. Retribution is backward looking and its aim is no more than to give the driver his or her just deserts for their conduct (‘an eye for an eye’).
“Other purposes of punishment – variously termed utilitarian, reductive or corrective – look to the future and have a positive aim. Most appropriate when considering sus- pension of taxi drivers’
the public in circum- stances where al- legations and other factual
scenarios
arise that need to be dealt with urgently, whilst reserving the position for a full hearing at a later date.
hoped that other authorities
“The public interest is not in seeing a driv- er punished for his conduct as this is not the function of the licensing regime. The licensing regime is concerned with protec- tion of the public. If a sanction by way of suspension is imposed the aim is to ensure that the driver’s conduct will not be repeated…”
Now we present a somewhat controversial view from Charles Holland, a barrister with extensive experience in taxi/private hire law, who wrote an article in April 2017 entitled “Why I say interim suspensions are still lawful despite Singh v Cardiff”.
Mr Holland takes eleven pages to explain the rationale behind his perspective; as space doesn’t allow that here we’ll just give you his conclusion: “The suggestion in Singh v Cardiff that s.61 does not give local authorities an interim power of suspension is obiter and any persuasive weight that it has should be confined to the very peculiar facts of the case in question…
“Further, and in any event, there are – I think – very powerful arguments that Singh was, on this point, decided per incuriam and is wrong. In particular: the court does not appear to have had any regard to the purpose of the licensing scheme as explained in McCool, and wrongly treated s.61 as a disciplinary (rather than a regula- tory) provision;
“It does not appear that the court was taken to Leeds v Hussain and thus was unaware of an interim suspension decision which had survived a judicial challenge; the judge’s reasoning around s.61(2B) is con- tradictory and fails to appreciate that the only basis on which a suspension should have immediate effect is if it is an interim step; and the judge did not deal with the human rights consequences of his decision on drivers.
licences are
‘corrective’ measures aimed at the driver. Thismay entail the driver attending a driver training course or other improving measure (rehabilitation) or the sanction of suspen- sion operating as an individual deterrent against future misconduct by the driver.
OCTOBER 2018
“Some local authorities, Leeds City Council being one, have decided (in my view, right- ly) not to follow the dicta in Singh v Cardiff but instead to publish an interim suspen- sion policy setting out, transparently, how they will use interim suspensions to protect
an appeal arises where the Courts can give a definitive answer.”
Phew! Heavy going or what. You can see the complexity of this issue, and you can read in this very edition of PHTM howmany licence holders are affected by the action – or reaction – of their licensing department when faced with the possibility of being convicted of an offence – and then in some cases being found not guilty.
As an example, there is the story this month from Bury about the driver who claimed he was carrying out a medical examination of his female passenger when he touched her thigh and asked if her pants came down. He was given four months’ suspension and told he will have to sit a “communications exam” before his licence can be reinstated.
Only fourmonths’ suspension? Are you kid- ding?? So after fourmonths this person will be totally reformed, and will never again be inclined to treat his passengers in such a manner, is that it? And what is the purpose of the communications exam… it seems as though he communicated his intentions quite clearly enough. But because the com- plainant didn’t wish to take the matter any further, the guy is let off lightly.
It comes back down to that tried and test- ed question once again:Would you let your wife/girlfriend/daughter/grandmother etc. be taken on a journey alone with this driv- er? If the answer is No, that should decide without doubt whether or not any of these individuals should retain their licence. Surely suspension shouldn’t come into the equation for offences of this seriousness: they’re either fit and proper or they are not, and a temporary smack-hands allow- ing them back on the road puts the safety of the public – the number one remit of every council in the land – at potential risk once more.
Donna Short National PrivateHire and TaxiAssociation 0161 280 2800
www.npha.org.uk donnadale.npha@
btconnect.com
49
It is to be follow
their example until
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
