|
Isn't it about time the disciplinary process was completely revised.
In Scotland the Council is authorised under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to suspend a licence holder on the basis that they not a "fit and proper person" to hold that licence.
This was clearly designed to ensure that licences are only operated by fit and proper people, and their licence to be removed when they are deemed not to be, in the public interest of course.
However, councils have taken it upon themselves to use this power within the act to set themselves up as kangaroo courts. They use suspension, like they clearly do in Reading, as a means of punishment. This can range from 1 month to whatever the council decides.
This brings to mind the case of Garry Thomson (well documented so there's no objection to his name being published, who got involved with another driver on a taxi rank. The other driver undercut him for an out of town fare and when Garry remonstrated with him the driver spat at him. Garry's instataneous response was to flick his hand toward this miscreant in a dismissive way, a light slap.
Garry was charged with assault, one of the passengers supported the other driver and Garry was found guilty and fined £150, probably the least that could be levied for the minor crime committed.
(Incidentally, those who know Garry would recognise that if he HAD chosen to assault this creep he likely would have taken some time to lift himself off the pavement.)
Anyway, the council suspended Garry for one month, forced him to pay to attend two training modules (Customer service and anger management), because they deemed his actions had rendered him not a "fit and proper person" to hold the licence. This raises two serious questions.
First, by suspending Garry, causing him to lose one moth's earnings the actions of the copuncil effectively caused Garry to be punished twice, a clear breach of even basic natural justice.
Second, How can it be that after one month individuals can suddenly become "fit and proper" people again? Of course they simply can't.
Clearly suspending lcence holders a s means of punishment was never the intention of the act, except of course the statutory removal of the licence.
Had it been so there would have been in place a mechanism to guide the way the hearings were held, there would have been provision for properly trained professional expert adjudication and clear sentencing guidelines. Importantly, there would have been an automatic right, and an appropriate process, of appeal within the framework of the legislation.
Of course none of this exists because it was never intended that the Act should be interpreted in this way.
That it is so to this day is entirely because no one has taken the matter before the courts to test it. This would be prohibitively expensive and it is certain that "sentencing" is kept to a level where it more cost effective to "do the time" rather than risk financial hardship through the courts.
So, think about this if you ever find yourself sitting in front of councillors, who have no appreciation of what it truly is like at the sharp end of a busy weekend night dealing with drunks and general scum, and who have no experience or qualifications to pass judgement on anyone.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
