R Singh v Cardiff City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SINGH,MR MORGAN |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 1852 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/10807/2011 |
| Date | 23 May 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 1852 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Cardiff Civil Justices Centre
2 Park Street
Cardiff CF10 1ET
Mr Justice Singh
CO/10807/2011
Mr G Walters (instructed by Crowley Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr P Morris (instructed by Cardiff City Council) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Introduction
The principal claimants in this claim for judicial review are two holders of Hackney Carriage drivers' licences. The defendant is a County Council which is a unitary authority but which for present purposes exercises the functions of the District Council in relation to the licensing of Hackney Carriages and private hire vehicles.
The principal claimants challenge in particular decisions taken by the defendant on 9th August 2011 to revoke their licences.
The defendant authority is the successor to the former Cardiff City Council. There are two other claimants in these proceedings which are companies referred to in the first witness statement of Mr Carl Cummings in support of the present claim for judicial review at paragraphs 2 and 3. The first of those is Prime Outlet Ltd which owns and is the proprietor of 133 Hackney Carriage vehicles in the Cardiff area. The company also provides private hire vehicles. Mr Cummings informs the court that he is the major shareholder in that company.
The other corporate claimant is SupaTax 2000 Ltd which owns a taxi booking business which Mr Cummings informs the court is used by over 20,000 passengers in Cardiff every week. He is also the major shareholder in that company and is its sole Director.
Permission to bring this claim for judicial review was granted after an oral hearing by Bean J on 13th February 2012. In the course of his judgment in granting permission Bean J extended time to bring the claim in the case of Mr Singh (see paragraph 14 of that judgment). Bean J did not expressly, it would seem, deal with the question of the standing to bring these proceedings of the two corporate claimants in this case. The defendant authority in its written submissions has objected to their standing. No vigorous opposition was pursued at the oral hearing before me on that basis. Nevertheless, standing is not something which can be conferred by consent and it is appropriate that I should say something about it albeit briefly.
Suffice it to say that having considered the material and submissions in this case, I am satisfied that both of the corporate claimants do have sufficient interest in the matters to which this claim for judicial review relates. They are not individual holders of licences, so in that sense they cannot be said to be directly the subject of the revocations by the defendant of which complaint is made. Nevertheless, I am satisfied on the evidence and submissions which have been placed before the court that they are not, for example, mere busy bodies. They have a legitimate interest in the matters to which these proceedings relate and accordingly I conclude that they do have standing to bring these proceedings along with the individual claimants.
Factual Background: the development of policy
The background to these individual cases can be traced back, so far as the efforts of the parties have been able to ascertain, to a report dated 14th September 1988 to the then City Council. The report was by the City Environmental Health Officer to its Licensing Committee and was entitled "Conduct of Hackney Carriage. Private Hire drivers".
Paragraph 1 explains that the purpose of the report was to consider the introduction of a penalty points scheme for implementation in the event of misconduct by licensed Hackney Carriage/Private Hire drivers. By paragraph 2, by way of background it was observed that the misconduct of licensed drivers can be actioned in one of two ways: (a) for a specific offence under bylaws or the Local Government ( Miscellaneous) Provisions Act; (b) for other matters action can be taken under section 61 of the same Act.
As was observed at 2(1B) that section allows a relevant Council to suspend or revoke a driver's licence on the following grounds:
that since the grant of the licence he has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency, violence or an offence under this or the Town Police Clauses Act 1847;
For any other reasonable cause. Paragraph 3 of the report was headed "present difficulty" and stated:
"3.1 The actions available to the Licensing Committee under paragraph 2(b) above appear wide ranging, but in practice are limited in that the decision to be made is in effect whether or not the driver in question is a 'fit and proper' person.
3.2 If it is decided that the driver is not, then the only real avenue available is to revoke the licence.
3.3 This results in no action being taken against licensed drivers who are guilty of misconduct, the magnitude of which does not warrant revocation."
Paragraph 4 of the report headed "proposals" stated:
"4.1 In order to bridge the gap that exists for action against licensed drivers involved in this misconduct, a penalty points system could be adopted for use by this Committee.
4.2 Instead of considering alleged offenders for suspension or revocation. The Committee consider action by way of revocation or disciplinary action.
4.3. In the event of disciplinary action being deemed appropriate the offender be given penalty points, the number depending upon the severity of the offence.
4.4. The accumulation of more than 10 penalty points within a period of 3 years results in the automatic revocation of the driver's licence involved.
4.5 In cases of automatic suspension the driver involved will still have a right of appeal to the Magistrates' Court."
The recommendations at the end of the report were (i) the Committee adopt a penalty point scheme based on the proposals contained in that report; (ii) that the system be implemented from 1st October 1988; and (iii) that the trade be informed of the adoption of the scheme.
On that date, 14th September 1988, the relevant Committee of the City Council resolved to adopt the penalty point scheme based on the proposals contained in the report from 1st October 1988 for a 12 month trial period and to inform the trade of that scheme.
There is before the court next in time a report of the Director of Environmental Services to the City Council's Licensing Committee dated 7th December 1988, entitled "Penalty point system". In paragraph 4, which was headed "Discussion", the period adopted for the accumulation of penalty points was noted to be fixed as 3 years, as a reasonable period. At paragraph 4.4 it was noted:
"The Committee has the right to revoke drivers' licences if offences are severe and to have penalty point range up to 10 is not necessary."
At paragraph 4.6 it was stated:
"The implementation of a penalty points system involves the consideration of offences by the Licensing Committee and if necessary the awarding of penalty points, the number of which will depend on extent and degree of the offence."
At 4.7 it was stated:
"The adoption of the penalty point system does not remove the authority of the Licencing Committee to revoke licences instantly outside of the points system for major offences."
On that date, 7th December 1988, the relevant Committee passed a resolution to introduce a penalty point system from 1st October 1988 for a 12 month period and for this to be reviewed after 12 months in October 1989. There is then before the court a resolution of the Licensing Committee of the City Council on 11th October 1989, which refers to the penalty point system review and resolved to amend the penalty point system guidelines relating to the persistent receipt of stop notices in the manner set out in more detail in that resolution.
At some point, although the date is not entirely clear, for reasons which are not material, a crystallised form of the relevant policy was arrived at. As it happens the document which is before the court bears the date in a footer of 16th April 1993 but it is not clear that it was in fact adopted on that date, it may well be that that was simply a date when a particular person printed the document out. It is to be noted, as I will mention later, that there has been an amendment to the policy in December 2011. The document produced on that occasion still has in its footer the date of 16th April 1993.
Be that as it may, it is common ground before me that the document which is before the court does set out the policy as it was in force at the time of the two individual decisions which are in issue in the present case. The document is headed "Penalty point system" and states:
"The Licensing Committee agreed to introduce a Penalty Point system to be utilised in the event of misconduct by licensed Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers. As a consequence the Licensing Committee defined guidelines for the administration of the system and resolved that.
(i) the categories of offences, together with the range of penalty points listed below be adopted as guidelines, and each matter be considered on its merits and depend on the circumstances surrounding each case."
There then followed headed (a) to (g) a number of types of incident, for example assault, harassment, deception etc with a points range set out for each type of incident. The policy continued at paragraph 2:
"the accumulation of 10 or more points in any period of 3 years will normally result in the automatic revocation of the licence."
As...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council v Jacek Pawlowski
...PHV drivers' licences and in the hope of obtaining some guidance for the future consequent upon the judgment of Singh J in R (Singh) v Cardiff County Council [2012] EWHC 1852 (Admin), [2013] L.L.R. 108. Mr Pawlowski has no personal interest in any determination of that matter. The Council d......
-
[1] Hon. Shawn K. Richards [2] Hon. Timothy Harris [3] Hon. Eugene A. Hamilton [4] Hon. Mark Brantley Applicants v [1] The Constituency Boundaries Commission [2] His Excellency the Governor General [3] The Prime Minister of St. Christopher and Nevis [4] Attorney General of St Christopher and Nevis Respondents [ECSC]
...St Vincent and The Grenadines (unreported); R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex p Calveley [1986] QB 424; R. (on the application of Singh) v Cardiff City Council [2012] EWHC 1852 (Admin); R. (on the application of C) v Financial Services Authority [2012] A.C.D. 97Queen's Bench Divi......
-
Mehrdad Kaivanpor v Director of Public Prosecutions
...immediate effect. We have considered whether suspension or revocation is appropriate in this case. However, following the case of Singh v Cardiff City Council we can only do one or the other and given the seriousness of the alleged incident it is felt that revocation is appropriate in these......