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 he was informed by letter that the first-named licence would not be renewed and that the other was revoked, thus making it unlawful for him to drive a private hire vehicle or to operate his private hire firm.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
|