captain cab wrote:
there is procedures - if a driver has numerous complaints made against them, what is a council supposed to do?
If he had been "Tried" in a Magistrates Court he may have got a "not guilty" as the burden of proof is higher. As a "Quasi-Judicial" has given him a punishment on balance of "is he fit and proper" where guilt or innocence of a particular crime are not actually the question, double jeopardy means he can't now be tried for the original alleged offence.
So that leaves him with an appeal against being found "Not fit and proper" - which he has lost in this case - because the Court only have to decide if the Council got that finding correct on the balance that the Council had to rely on.
Perhaps the Council Licensing Department should have used their enforcement powers to prosecute. If they secured a conviction the "Criminal" would then face the Quasi-Judicial who would decide on the fit and proper status in light of the conviction. If they didn't get a conviction, that is an end to it.
Someone very close to me faces a prosecution shortly. If he gets convicted, (he could appeal that conviction) next stop Quasi-Judicial, if he doesn't get found guilty that is it, it can progress no further.
The burning question is, in this case, would the CPS have pursued a prosecution for using the phone? If the evidence was not enough for the Council or CPS to go to Court, should they be allowed to skip that encumbrance and go straight to Quasi-Judicial? Should an alleged offender have the right perhaps, to reject Quasi-Judicial and ask for Magistrates Court - in effect "Put up or shut up" and "Prove the Offence" at the level demanded by justice?
Without knowing all the details, I think this Chap may consider that he has been shafted.
The down side is that every complaint made by the Public could end up with Drivers being in the Courts. The Courts won't like that idea. So where should the line be drawn, perhaps offences against Primary Legislation, using a mobile phone whilst driving for example, should be in the Court. Offences against Byelaws, not wearing a Drivers Badge and the like should be in Quasi-Judicial with the proviso that Court is an option.
To take it to the extreme, if a Driver kills someone and the Quasi-Judicial jump the gun and decide he is "Not fit and proper" are the Courts precluded from Trying for Murder or Manslaughter? I think they are, so it does not happen. What should happen is that a Court should set Bail conditions and if it is not "Remanded in custody" the conditions should include not driving licenced vehicles. (It should not be the immediate suspension which all except Plymouth can use.)
Login
Register
FAQ
