Leeds City Council v Hussain
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SILBER |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/1376/2002 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 23 May 2002 |
[2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin)
Mr Justice Silber
CO/1376/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
MR T STOREY (instructed by Leeds City Council, Department of Legal Services, Civic Hall, Leeds, LS1 1UR) appeared on behalf of the appellant
The respondent did not appear and was not represented
Thursday, 23rd May 2002
This case raises issues relating to the circumstances in which a council can suspend private hire driver and vehicle licences and the factors which they have to take into account for doing so.
Leeds City Council ("the City Council") appeals by way of case stated from a decision of His Honour Judge McCallum sitting with justices made at the Leeds Crown Court on 22nd October 2001 in which they allowed an appeal by Mehfooz Hussain ("the respondent") against a decision of the Leeds Magistrates to uphold a decision of the City Council to suspend the respondent's private hire driver and vehicle licences. The reason for these suspensions was that on 2nd August 2001 the respondent had been charged with an offence of violent disorder arising out of an incident on 26th June 2001, which involved a number of private hire drivers and their vehicles.
The statutory provision under which the City Council and thereafter the Magistrates had suspended the respondent's hire and vehicle licences are set out in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 ("the 1976 Act"), section 60 of which deals with suspension, revocation and vehicle licences. The relevant part of it states that:
"… a council may suspend … a vehicle licence on any of the following grounds -
(a) that the … private hire vehicle is unfit for use as a … private hire vehicle;
(b) any offence under or non-compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1847 or this part of the Act by the operator or driver; or
(c) any other reasonable cause."
In this case, the City Council relies on the ground of "any other reasonable cause" to justify the suspension of the respondent's vehicle licence.
Section 61 of the 1976 Act deals with the suspension or revocation of drivers' licences, and the relevant part of subsection (1) provides that:
"… a council may suspend … the licence of a driver of a … private hire vehicle on any of the following grounds -
(a) that he has since the grant of the licence (i) been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence; or (ii) been convicted of an offence under or has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1847 or any part of this Act; or any other reasonable cause."
The City Council again relies on "any other reasonable cause" in that subsection to justify the suspension of the respondent's licence.
The findings of the Crown Court
The Crown Court found five facts, namely:
"(a) It would have been preferable to have awaited the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the Respondent before taking any action in relation to his private hire licences;
(b) The Appellant called no live evidence but relied solely upon a case summary prepared by the West Yorkshire Police, the author of which was not to be called;
(c) There was not sufficient information before us to say that there was a reasonable chance of the Respondent being convicted of the offence of violent disorder;
(d) If the appeal had not been allowed, the Respondent would have been deprived of his livelihood for some time, given that it would be many months before the criminal allegation reached trial;
(e) it was not clear whether the Respondent would be able to claim compensation if ultimately acquitted of the offence of violent disorder."
The issues
The questions raised by the Crown Court for the determination of this court are:
(a) Whether, in the case of a holder of private hire vehicle and driver's licences who has been charged with a serious criminal offences committed in the course of his employment, it is necessary for there to be a finding of guilty in relation to that criminal charge before a decision can properly be made as to whether there is 'any … reasonable cause' to suspend his licences;
(b) Whether, in the case of a holder of private hire vehicle and driver's licences who has been charged with a serious criminal offence committed in the course of his employment, it is necessary to hear live witness evidence from witnesses to the offence with which he has been charged before a decision can properly be made as to whether there is 'any … reasonable cause' to suspend his licences;
(c) Whether, in the case of a holder of private hire vehicle and driver's licences who has been charged with a serious criminal offence committed in the course of his employment, it is necessary to reach the conclusion that there is at least a reasonable chance of him being convicted of this offence before his licences can properly be suspended;
(d) Whether, in the case of a holder of private hire vehicle and driver's licences who has been charged with a serious criminal offence committed in the course of his employment, the impact of the suspension of those licences upon his livelihood and the absence of any compensation if he is ultimately acquitted of the criminal charge are circumstances which can properly be taken into account when deciding whether there is 'any … reasonable cause' to suspend his licences."
At the hearing before me the City Council was represented by counsel but the respondent was neither present nor represented. At the conclusion of the hearing I announced that I would allow the appeal but would give my reasons later, which I now do.
The issues raised by the case stated can conveniently be considered under the following three broad heads, namely: first, whether there has to be a conviction or a reasonable prospect of a conviction of a licence holder before his licences can be suspended ("the need for conviction issue"); second, whether the finding of "any … reasonable cause" to justify suspension can be reached without hearing live evidence from witnesses to the offence ("the hearsay evidence issue"); third, whether the impact of suspension of the licences on the livelihood of the licence holder and the absence of any compensation if he is ultimately acquitted of the criminal charge can be taken into account in determining whether there is "any … reasonable cause" to suspend the licences ("the licenceholder personal circumstances issue").
The need for conviction issue
The Crown Court took the view that "the chances of a conviction were material when determining whether a reasonable cause to suspend the licences [could] be found", but it asked if it was necessary for there to be a finding of guilt before this ground for suspension of a licence could be made out. The wording of section 61 of the 1976 Act provides that a driver's licence can be suspended even when he has not been convicted in respect of serious offences. This is so because subsection 61(a)(1) of the 1976...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melton v Uttlesford District Council
...from this job will be a severe burden upon you and may leave you unable to retain your accommodation. However in the case of Leeds City Council v Hussain the Court declined to take into account the personal circumstances in determining an appeal. In particular the Courts said “…the Council ......
-
David Thomas v The Financial Services Authority
...parte Olson The Times 21 May 1992; McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council [1998] 3 All ER 889 at 896b; and Leeds City Council v Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin). The Applicant argued that the Respondent had to prove that he was not fit and proper. Mr Blair distinguished Hussain where there was......
-
Hussain and Others v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
...[2014] 4 All ER 943, UTKingsbridge Pension Fund Trust v Downs [2017] UKUT 237 (LC); [2017] L & TR 31, UTLeeds City Council v Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin); [2003] RTR 13McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council [1998] 3 All ER 889, DCNT1 v Google llc (Information Comr intervening) [2018] EWHC ......
-
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council v Jacek Pawlowski
...may appeal to a magistrates' court. 9 The exercise of the power to suspend PHV drivers' licences was considered by Silber J in Leeds City Council v Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 Admin, [2003] R.T.R. 13; much of the judgment is also relevant to the power to revoke. Silber J held that the words "a......
-
Evidence
...correct and … should not be departed from …” The answer to the question was “yes”; appeal dismissed. Jubb v DPP [2002] EWHC 2317 Admin, [2003] RTR 19, 25 October 2002, QBD (Admin) The requirements of s 16(1), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, on the production of printouts from the breath a......
-
Table of Cases
...Jowle, DPP v The Times 13 December 1997, (1999) 163 JP 85, DC! 515 .................. Jubb v DPP [2002] EWHC 2317 Admin, [2003] RTR 19, QBD! 101, 331 .......................................................... Judge, DPP v, unreported, CO/669/88, DC! 230 ...........................................