R (Christopher Stace) v Milton Keynes Magistrates Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LADY JUSTICE HALLETT,MR JUSTICE OWEN,Mr Justice Keith,MR JUSTICE KEITH |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 242 (Admin),[2006] EWHC 1049 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/7657/2005,Case No: CO/5710/2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 12 May 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 1049 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DMINISTRATIVE COURT
The Hon Mr Justice Keith
Case No: CO/5710/2005
Mr Graham Goodwill (instructed by Whatley & Co) for the Claimant
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Mr Justice Keith:
Introduction
This a claim for judicial review of the dismissal by Milton Keynes Magistrates' Court of an appeal by the Claimant, Christopher Stace, from a decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the Eastern Traffic Area revoking Mr Stace's entitlement to hold a passenger-carrying vehicle driver's licence, known as a PCV driver's licence. Permission to proceed with the claim was given by Leveson J.
The statutory framework
PCV driver's licences are granted by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in accordance with Part IV of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act"). Section 112 of the Act authorises the Secretary of State to grant such a licence only if "he is satisfied, having regard to his conduct, that [the applicant for such a licence] is a fit person to hold the licence…" Section 121(1) of the Act provides that the applicant's conduct means "his conduct both as a driver of a motor vehicle and in any other respect relevant to his holding" a PCV driver's licence.
Sections 115–117 of the Act contain provisions relating to the revocation of a PCV driver's licence, and the disqualification of the holder from driving passenger-carrying vehicles and holding such a licence in the future. The provisions, so far as is material, are as follows:
Section 115(1): "A… passenger-carrying vehicle driver's licence… (b) must be revoked or suspended if [the holder's] conduct is such as to make him unfit to hold such a licence…"
Section 116(1): "Any question arising– (a) under section 115(1)(b)… as to whether a person is or is not, by reason of his conduct, fit to hold a… passenger-carrying vehicle driver's licence… may be referred by the Secretary of State to the traffic commissioner for the area in which the holder of the licence resides."
Section 116(2): "Where, on any reference under subsection (1)(a) above, the traffic commissioner determines that the holder of the licence is not fit to hold a… passenger-carrying vehicle driver's licence,… he shall also determine whether the conduct of the holder of the licence is such as to require the revocation of his licence or only its suspension; and if the former, whether the holder of the licence should be disqualified under section 117(2)(a)… (and if so, for what period)…"
Section 117(2): "Where in pursuance of section 115(1)(b)… the Secretary of State revokes a person's… passenger-carrying vehicle driver's licence, the Secretary of State may– (a) order the holder to be disqualified indefinitely or for such period as the Secretary of State thinks fit…"
Appeals against decisions made under these provisions are governed by section 119 of the Act, which provides, so far as is material:
"(1) A person who, being the holder of… a… passenger—carrying vehicle driver's licence… is aggrieved by the Secretary of State's… suspension or revocation of such a licence in pursuance of section 115… may, after giving to the Secretary of State and any traffic commissioner to whom the matter was referred notice of his intention to do so, appeal to a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area in which the holder of… the licence resides…
(3) On any appeal under subsection (1) above the court… may make such order as it thinks fit and the order shall be binding on the Secretary of State."
The facts
Mr Stace was granted a PCV driver's licence in September 2001, and was employed as a bus driver in Milton Keynes. At the end of 2003, his marriage ran into difficulties, and he faced charges alleging that on three occasions – on 8 January, 10 January and 25 March 2004 – he had assaulted his wife by beating her. He also faced a charge of failing to surrender after being granted bail following his arrest for the third attack on his wife. On 5 May 2004, a community rehabilitation order for 12 months was made in respect of each of the charges, conditional upon him attending a community domestic violence programme – though when it was discovered that 12 months was insufficient for him to participate in such a programme, the length of the community rehabilitation order was increased to 2 years. The register of convictions showed that the court decided not to make any order for compensation in view of the couple's attempt at reconciliation.
In the light of these convictions, the Secretary of State referred the question of Mr Stace's fitness to hold a PCV driver's licence to the Traffic Commissioner under section 116(1) of the Act. Mr Stace was required to attend a hearing before the Traffic Commissioner on 9 July 2004. He failed to attend, and a further hearing was set for 27 July 2004. He failed to attend that hearing as well, and the Traffic Commissioner decided to proceed in Mr Stace's absence. He decided, pursuant to section 116(2) of the Act, that Mr Stace's entitlement to hold a PCV driver's licence should be revoked with effect from 31 July 2004. He also decided, pursuant to section 117(2) of the Act, that Mr Stace was to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a PCV driver's licence indefinitely.
Mr Stace appealed against that decision to Milton Keynes Magistrates' Court. His appeal was heard on 6 May 2005. Mr Stace gave evidence, as did his sister. He said that he was suffering from depression, and his sister, who is a state registered nurse, told the magistrates that Mr Stace had attended at a centre which she named since "it was thought he might commit suicide". She said that she had power of attorney for him as "he doesn't have the energy to sort things out" for himself. On the other hand, she said that Mr Stace had worked on the buses in Milton Keynes 6 days a week without any problem. He loved driving, and did not pose a threat to anyone. A letter from his employers stated that they would certainly consider re-employing him if he got his PCV driver's licence back. The magistrates also had a letter from Mr Stace's probation officer. She commented that since Mr Stace had always denied assaulting his wife, it had not been possible to undertake any offence-focused work with him, but she added that he had fully complied with the order, that she was not aware of any further offences having been committed by him, that he was currently assessed as being of low risk of re-offending, and that she was making an application to the court for the early discharge of the order due to the good progress he had made.
The magistrates dismissed the appeal. They were subsequently requested to give their reasons for doing so, and the document which they produced, after summarising the evidence, said this:
"In coming to its decision the bench took particular note of the fact that Mr Stace had three convictions for assault, and a conviction for failing to attend [sic]. We also noted that although the CRO had gone well the order was still in place and Mr Stace was still suffering from depression. We noted that vocational entitlement can only be achieved by demonstrating fitness and therefore:—This bench having regard to Mr Stace's conduct finds that he is not a fit person [to] hold a PCV licence."
The filing of the claim
Mr Stace wished to appeal against the decision of the magistrates. When his solicitors wrote to the magistrates' clerk requesting reasons for their decision, they also asked for confirmation that the appeal was to the Crown Court. They were subsequently given a summary of those reasons over the telephone, but in that conversation they were not told that the appeal was not to the Crown Court. Accordingly, a notice of appeal was lodged with Aylesbury Crown Court. However, the Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from appeals heard by a magistrates' court under section 119 of the Act, and on 5 July 2005 Mr Stace abandoned his appeal to the Crown Court. By then the time for applying to the magistrates for a case to be stated for the opinion of the High Court had expired. That would have been a more appropriate course to take in view of the point which it is sought to take on his behalf – namely that the magistrates erred in law by taking into account irrelevant considerations. Since it was too late to do that, Mr Stace's only recourse was to file a claim for judicial review. That was filed in the Administrative Court Office on 8 August 2005.
Why did it take until then to file it? The reason was that Mr Stace and his solicitors were looking for ways to avoid a potentially costly claim for judicial review. They reckoned that since the Traffic Commissioner's decision had been reached in Mr Stace's absence he might consider a review of his decision in the light of the evidence which had emerged at the hearing before the magistrates' court. Accordingly, Mr Stace's solicitors wrote to the Traffic Commissioner on 15 July 2005 requesting him to consider the re-convening of a hearing for the purposes of assessing Mr Stace's fitness to hold a PCV driver's licence. However, reg. 57 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 prevented the Traffic Commissioner from reconsidering his order for 5 years. Mr Stace's solicitors were informed of that by letter dated 4 August 2005. They proceeded to file the claim for judicial review without any further delay.
The judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
...adequate evidence of good character and record is adduced and there is no reason to question or doubt it” (896b). 22 R (Stace) v Milton Keynes Magistrates' Court [2006] EWHC 1049 (Admin) concerned the holder of a passenger-carrying vehicle (“PCV”) driver's licence. Following his convictio......
-
Milton v DPP
...of guilt because the test was an objective one. 9 The district judge also referred to the judgment of Hallett LJ in the DPP v Milton [2006] EWHC 242, where she stressed that the test under Section 2A(1) was wholly objective. The court allowed the appeal against DJ Morgan's decision to acqui......
-
R v Craig Bannister
...driving. The prosecutor appealed, by way of case stated, to the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court (Hallett LJ and Owen J) [2006] EWHC 242 (Admin) allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Magistrates' Court. One question was whether the Magistrates' Court had been correct in ta......
- R Hume v Carmarthen Magistrates Court