Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:00 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36816
Location: Wayneistan
R v Burton on Trent Justices ex parte Hussain (1996) 9 Admin LR 233


anyone got a copy of this case?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm
Posts: 1279
This is all I got needs tidying

DIVISIONAL COURT

MAGISTRATES MUST FIND FACTS AND GIVE REASONS

v Burton-an-Trent if. ex p Hussain
In R v Harrow ​ex p Dave ​(1994) ​158 JP ​250, it was held that the magistrates' failure to make findings of fact and give reasons for their decision amounted to a denial of natural justice. The same view was taken by the Divisional Court in R v Burton-on-Trent II ex p hrussain (1996)
160 JP 808, where, in similar circumstances, the failure led to the quashing of the magistrates' decision. In that caw, the applicant for judicial review was a cab driver who held a private hire driver's licence and a private hire operators licence issued by a local authority. After a hearing before a panel or that authority, at which he attended with his solicitor. he was informed by letter that the first-named licence would not be renewed and that the other was revoked, thus making it unlawful for him to drive a private hire vehicle or to operate his private hire firm. He appealed to the justices, who accepted that the appeal was by way of rehearing. The statements of three witnesses were read to the justices and were accepted by them, but on making his application for judicial review he objected that he had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that no offer had been made of an adjournment to obtain their attendance for that purpose. He had objected to the justices that he would have no opponunity to cross-examine, but he did not object to the admission of the statements and did not ask for an adjournment or make any request that he be allowed an opportunity to cross-examine. In these circumstances. the Divisional Court suited that if his only complaint were the lack of cross-cxamination, his application for judicial review would be bound to fail. The applicant, however, had advanced a second ground for judicial review, namely that neither the licensing authority nor the justices had given any reasons for their conclusions. When the justices returned to court after their retirement, they did no more than announce their decision. The clerk's letter which announced the decision to the applicant did no more than refer to the relevant section of the Local Government
(I'vliscellaneous Provisions) Act ​1976 under which the decision had been
taken.
The clerk's affidavit to the Divisional Court was that there had heen no retool for any findings of fact and no request for reasons for the decision and that in consequence he had given the justices no advice on either of those matters_ Section 61 (1) (b) and (2) (a) require a licensing authority which suspends, revokes or refuses to renew a licence to give the driver `notice of the grounds.' on which they reached their decision. The applicant argued that this must mean that the 'reasons' for the decision must he given in every case, the more particularly as the statute itself sets out the grounds on which a decision may be come to. Here" neither what the justices said nor what the clerk wrote on their behalf 5pccified what the
229


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36816
Location: Wayneistan
Had a go at tidying - thanks for that MCF

DIVISIONAL COURT

MAGISTRATES MUST FIND FACTS AND GIVE REASONS


R v Burton on Trent Justices ex parte Hussain (1996) 160 JP 808 Admin

In R v Harrow ​ex p Dave ​(1994) ​158 JP ​250, it was held that the magistrates' failure to make findings of fact and give reasons for their decision amounted to a denial of natural justice.

The same view was taken by the Divisional Court in R v Burton-on-Trent II ex p hrussain (1996) 160 JP 808, where, in similar circumstances, the failure led to the quashing of the magistrates' decision.

In that caw, the applicant for judicial review was a cab driver who held a private hire driver's licence and a private hire operators licence issued by a local authority.

After a hearing before a panel or that authority, at which he attended with his solicitor. he was informed by letter that the first-named licence would not be renewed and that the other was revoked, thus making it unlawful for him to drive a private hire vehicle or to operate his private hire firm.

He appealed to the justices, who accepted that the appeal was by way of rehearing.

The statements of three witnesses were read to the justices and were accepted by them, but on making his application for judicial review he objected that he had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that no offer had been made of an adjournment to obtain their attendance for that purpose.

He had objected to the justices that he would have no opponunity to cross-examine, but he did not object to the admission of the statements and did not ask for an adjournment or make any request that he be allowed an opportunity to cross-examine. In these circumstances. the Divisional Court suited that if his only complaint were the lack of cross-cxamination, his application for judicial review would be bound to fail.

The applicant, however, had advanced a second ground for judicial review, namely that neither the licensing authority nor the justices had given any reasons for their conclusions. When the justices returned to court after their retirement, they did no more than announce their decision.

The clerk's letter which announced the decision to the applicant did no more than refer to the relevant section of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act ​1976 under which the decision had been taken.

The clerk's affidavit to the Divisional Court was that there had heen no retool for any findings of fact and no request for reasons for the decision and that in consequence he had given the justices no advice on either of those matters.

Section 61 (1) (b) and (2) (a) require a licensing authority which suspends, revokes or refuses to renew a licence to give the driver `notice of the grounds.' on which they reached their decision.

The applicant argued that this must mean that the 'reasons' for the decision must he given in every case, the more particularly as the statute itself sets out the grounds on which a decision may be come to. Here" neither what the justices said nor what the clerk wrote on their behalf 5pccified what the
229

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group