viewtopic.php?f=13&t=19698R (Singh) v Cardiff City Council [2012] EWHC 1852 (Admin)
R (Singh) v Cardiff City Council [2012] EWHC 1852 (Admin)This is the long awaited judgement in the judicial review brought against Cardiff City Council’s penalty point system for taxi drivers.
In brief, the Council adopted a penalty point scheme were different misdemeanours would result in different penalty points being awarded against drivers and once a driver has accumulated 10 penalty points in 3 years their licence would automatically be revoked.
Since the Magistrates’ Court on appeal is obligated in common law to determine the appeal “in the shoes of the Council” (i.e. cannot make any determination based on their opinion that the Council’s policy is erroneous) a judicial review of the policy was made.
The JD application was approved and was heard before Singh J on the 23rd of May 2012 the transcript of which is available on Licensing Resource.
Singh J stated that the introduction and enforcement of penalty point systems are not unlawful in principle.
He stated “A public authority is perfectly entitled to adopt policies which will regulate the exercise of a given discretionary power. In my judgment there is nothing wrong in principle with a licensing authority, such as the present, taking the view that the public interest justifies adopting a policy which would not lead to the suspension or revocation of a driver's licence, for example, for a single incident….there is nothing wrong in principle with the defendant authority such as the present, adopting the policy, which seeks, both in fairness to the driver potentially affected and also to protect the public interest, to have, as it were, a staged process by which the cumulative effect of incidents of misconduct may well lead ultimately to the conclusion that in the judgment of the local authority, a person is not a proper person to continue to enjoy the relevant licence.”
However, he found Cardiff’s particular approach unlawful for three reasons:
1. “The first is that the policy calls for the automatic revocation of a licence if 10 points have been accumulated in a 3 year period. That, on its face, leaves no room for judgment or discretion.” (Para. 74)
2. “The second fundamental defect is that this means that there is no consideration required, or it would appear perhaps even permitted by the policy of the underlying facts which lay behind the earlier imposition of points which a driver may have.” (Para. 76)
3. “The third fundamental defect, in my judgment, again accepting the claimant's submissions in this regard is that the policy does not recognise that the outcome even of concluding that a person is not a fit and proper person is not necessarily revocation, it may be under section 61 the sanction of suspension.” (Para. 78)
On a more important point, Singh J ruled on the question of suspending a driver’s licence under section 61 LG(MP)76 as an interim step pending the outcome of a subsequent investigation.
“In my judgment, the way in which the concept of suspension is used by Parliament is section 61 of the 1976 Act is not… to create a power of interim suspension, it is rather after a considered determination…a final decision on whether a ground for either revocation, or suspension of a licence is made out, for there to be either revocation or, as a lesser sanction, a sanction of suspension.”
This means is would be unlawful for a Council to suspend a driver’s licence as an interim step where, for example, the driver is subject to any form of investigation following an allegation or complaint. Revocation or suspension should only be used as a determination of the (un)fitness of the driver.
Login
Register
FAQ
