Melton v Uttlesford District Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Stadlen |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 2845 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 11 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/8138/08 |
[2009] EWHC 2845 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before : The Honourable Mr Justice Stadlen
Case No: CO/8138/08
Case No: CO/11489/08
Conjoined with
MR KEVIN LEIGH and MR PHILIP WILLIAMS (instructed by SANDERS WITHERSPOON) for the APPELLANT/CLAIMANT
MR TURLOUGH STONE (instructed by UTTLESFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL) for the RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
As Approved by the Courtz
Hearing dates: 23, 24 and 27 July 2009
The Honourable Mr Justice Stadlen:
There are before the court two separate but related proceedings. The first is an appeal by way of case stated brought by Thomas Melton (Mr Melton) against decisions of the Crown Court sitting at Chelmsford on 4 January 2008 dismissing an appeal against a decision made on 1 June 2007 by the North West Essex Magistrates Court to reject his appeal against a decision of the Uttlesford District Council to refuse his application for a private hire vehicle drivers licence on 1 June 2006. The second is a rolled up hearing of an application for permission for judicial review and if successful a claim for judicial review of a decision by the Council through its officer Mr Michael Perry that the private hire vehicle driver's licence granted by it on 9 May 2006 to Mr Melton was invalid. On the 2 March 2009 the two sets of proceedings were ordered to be heard together by Mrs Frances Patterson QC sitting as a deputy High Court Judge who also ordered the rolled up hearing in the judicial review proceedings.
The Facts
In the Statement of Case dated 12 August 2008 signed by Mr Ashe QC who sat as a recorder with lay magistrates, it was recorded that the following facts were found:
“16. The Council administers control of hackney carriages and private hire vehicle drivers under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Under its powers the Council adopted and published standards which it expects drivers licensed by the Council to meet both on an application for a new licence and during the period which a licence is held. While the Council makes clear in its published standards that each case will be dealt with on its merits it states that applications for a new licence from persons who fail to meet these standards will normally be refused and existing holders who cease to meet these standards are likely to have their licence suspended.
17. The published standards state: “The Executive Manager Corporate Governance has been given delegated authority to refuse application for drivers licences for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles which do not meet licensing standards, with power at his discretion to refer appropriate cases to the Committee”. The Committee referred to is the Licensing Committee of the Council and at the time the Executive Manager Corporate Governance was Mr Perry.
18. The relevant standard in this case is as follows: “No serious motoring offences in the last 3 years. For this purpose a serious motoring offences is defined as one where 6 or more points have been endorsed on the driver's licence”.
19. Mr Melton at the date of the hearing and for over eight years before that held a private hire driver's licence from East Hertfordshire District Council. In November 2005 Mr Melton had been offered a job with Chequer Cars at Stansted Airport and the Uttlesford Council was the relevant licensing authority. He anticipated that working for Chequer Cars would increase his earnings significantly. He told Mr Hardy that he was waiting for the result of a Court case and he was told to come back after that and take it from there.
20. The court case in question was a contested road traffic case. The result of this was that Mr Melton was convicted of failing to stop after an accident, failing to report an accident and careless driving. His licence was endorsed with six penalty points. He did not appeal.
21. After the case Mr Melton applied to Uttlesford District Council for a private hire driver's licence. By Statutory Declaration made on 11 April 2006, Mr Melton stated that he had not been charged with any criminal offence, that he had not been convicted of any criminal offence and that so far as he was aware he had not been the subject of any investigations regarding any possible criminal offences. He said that he swore the Statutory Declaration before a solicitor whom he told about the conviction for driving offences and that the solicitor told him that his offences did not matter as they were driving offences. Notwithstanding this Mr Melton told Mr Hardy about the six penalty points endorsed on his licence.
22. The Council issued the private hire driver's licence on 9 May 2006 to Mr Melton and he started work at Stansted Airport with Chequer Cars. A short time thereafter the matter came to the attention of Mr Perry who noticed that the licence ought not to have been issued to Mr Melton because having six penalty points his application had not met the Council's licensing standards and Mr Hardy the Licensing Officer had no authority to issue the licence.
23. Mr Perry interviewed Mr Melton at the Council's offices on 31 May 2006 and explained this to him. He then proceeded to deal with Mr Melton's application for a licence on the basis that because of the six penalty points he did not qualify for a licence. The policy of the Council was that where a driver failed to meet the Council's licensing standards, he or she is offered the opportunity of an interview with Mr Perry to explain the circumstances. The purpose of such an interview is to establish whether there are matters relating to an applicant for a licence which may lead the Licensing Committee of the Council to make an exception to its policy.
24. In Mr Melton's case Mr Perry sought at the interview to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the conviction. However Mr Melton denied that he had committed the offences. In these circumstances there was no explanation forthcoming by Mr Melton of how the offences came to be committed and Mr Perry could not find any reason to refer the matter to the Licensing Committee to consider a departure from policy. Mr Perry wrote to Mr Melton on 1 June 2006 confirming this.
25. Mr Melton lost his job with Chequer Cars and on 23 June 2006 appealed to the Magistrates Court against the suspension of his licence. At the hearing before the magistrates on 17 April 2007, the grounds of appeal were amended to an appeal against refusal to grant a licence.”
As appears below it will be necessary to elaborate somewhat on the factual background including in particular in relation to Mr Perry's interview with Mr Melton on 1 June 2006, Mr Perry's telephone call with Chequer Cars and the circumstances of the change in the nature of the appeal at the Magistrates Court on 17 April 2007.
In a witness statement dated 29 October 2006 made in opposition to Mr Melton's appeal to the Magistrates' Court Mr Perry stated that Mr Hardy had seen Mr Melton's DVLA drivers licence which confirmed that he had motoring convictions in 2005 for offences of careless driving, failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident for which his licence had been endorsed with 6 points. He added:
“10. For some reason Mr Hardy did not appreciate that Mr Melton did not qualify for a private hire driver's licence. I can only assume that at the time he was dealing with Mr Melton Mr Hardy was recalling the previous pre-licensing standards which would not normally permit a licence for a person with more than 9 points or who had been convicted of a serious motoring offence within the last 5 years. Unfortunately the previous pre-licensing standards (which Mr Hardy is used to working with) did not define “serious motoring offence” and as Mr Melton had only 6 points on his licence Mr Hardy may have mistakenly assumed that he qualified for the grant of a licence under delegated powers.
11. Having mistakenly approved the application Mr Hardy arranged for the licence to be prepared and the papers were then passed to a solicitor in the Legal Services Team (Mrs C. Oliva) for signature. Mrs Oliva tells me that she has no clear recollection of the circumstances in which she came to sign the licence but it is clear that she either failed to check the copy of Mr Melton's DVLA driver's licence which was on the file or she failed to compare it with the Council's licensing standards. In any event she signed the private hire driver's licence which was then issued to Mr Melton. The date of issue was 9 May 2006
12. The matter first came to my attention when the CRB check applied for in respect of Mr Melton was received at the Council Offices. Another licensing officer (Ms A. Turner) showed me the results which clearly indicated that a licence should not have been granted. In the circumstances I asked Ms Turner to arrange an interview for me with Mr Melton as a matter of urgency.
13. The interview took place at the Council Offices on 31 May 2006. I commenced by explaining to Mr Melton that the licence was invalid as it had been issued in error…
14. I then proceeded to deal with Mr Melton's application on the basis that he did not qualify for a licence. I asked Mr Melton to give me details of the accident which led to his prosecution. He informed me that it had been alleged that he overtook a vehicle on the M25 motorway on the inside and then pulled in front of the vehicle colliding with the front of the vehicle as he did so causing minor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Singh v Cardiff City Council
...that line of authority by going to a recent decision of Stadlen J in R on the application of Melton v Uttlesford District Council [2009] EWHC 2845 (Admin). At paragraph 84 of his judgment Stadlen J said: "It is undoubtedly the case that the appeal both to the Magistrates Court and to the Cr......