Stockton-on-tees Borough Council v Orangzabe Latif
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | CHRISTOPHER SYMONS QC |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 228 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4765/2008 |
| Date | 13 February 2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2009] EWHC 228 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Christopher Symons QC
Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
Case No: CO/4765/2008
Ms E. Joan Smith (instructed by Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council) for the Appellant
Mr Scott Smith (instructed by Paul Watson & Co.) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 20 th January 2009
CHRISTOPHER SYMONS QC :
This matter comes before this Court on a Case Stated from Teesside Crown Court (HHJ Armstrong sitting with two of Her Majesty's Justices for the Justice Area of Teesside). On the 14 th February 2008 the Crown Court allowed the Respondent's appeal, from the decision of the Teesside Magistrates Court of the 18 th December 2007 and decided that there was jurisdiction to extend the time for appealing the refusal of the Appellants' decision to revoke the Respondent's Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle licence beyond the statutory time limit of 21 days laid down.
The Appellant, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (“the Council”), now comes before this Court and argues that the Crown Court was wrong and that there was no such jurisdiction. The Appellant sought an extension of time for lodging this appeal and in the light of my decision on that matter I will return to this at the end of this judgment.
The questions which are posed for the opinion of this court are:
i) Whether the Court was wrong in law to allow an extension of the time for appealing from the licensing committee to the Magistrates' Court when the Public Heath Act 1936 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 do not provide for any statutory extension of the 21 day appeal period
ii) Whether the Court was wrong in law to apply the Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 3,1(2)(a) and Rule 52 in extending the statutory time for the appeal.
iii) Whether the Magistrates' Court, and/or the Crown Court on appeal from the Magistrates' Court have power to extend the 21 day time for appealing under section 300 of the Public Health Act 1936.
The Facts
Mr Latif, the Respondent in this matter, was the holder of a combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle licence from the Appellant. On 17 th November 2006 the Respondent received a police caution for possession of a Class C drug namely cannabis. The Council was notified of the caution on 4 th December 2006. The Respondent was interviewed and referred to the Council's licensing committee.
The committee eventually heard the matter on 23 rd October 2007 and resolved to revoke the Respondent's licence. Notice of the committee's decision, by way of a letter was hand delivered to the Respondent's wife at the Respondent's home address on 24 th October 2007. The letter, as it was obliged by statute to do, advised the Respondent that the time limit for an appeal to the Magistrate's Court against the committee's decision was 21 days, namely until 15 th November 2007.
The Respondent, for arguably good reason, failed to lodge his appeal within the 21 days but instead lodged an appeal on the 30 th November 2007. On 18 th December 2007 the magistrates declined to entertain the appeal as the notice was outside the designated 21 day period. The “Final Disposal Sheet” from the Magistrate's Court under “Other Disposal” was completed with the words –“Leave to Appeal Refused – Documents served therefore Appeal must be made within 21 days”.
The Respondent appealed to the Crown Court, which on the 14 th February 2008, allowed the appeal on the basis that there was power to extend the time and that it was reasonable to do so and that Court remitted the matter for a hearing on the merits by the Magistrates.
For reasons that are not apparent to me the Crown Court assumed that the Magistrates Court decision was based on a refusal to extend time on the basis of discretion rather than lack of jurisdiction. The Crown Court appeal was by way of rehearing and having set out the relevant statutory provisions, to which I shall turn below, decided (and here I quote from the Case Stated):
“20. The Court found that it was common ground that the CPR applied to the proceedings.
21. The Court decided that CPR Rule 3.1 empowered the Court to extend the appeal time limit, taking into account the length of the delay, the reason for the late appeal, the chances of success and the degree of prejudice to the Council and all the circumstances of the case.”
The Statutory Provisions
The power to grant licences to hackney carriage drivers and private hire drivers are contained in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (“the 1976 Act”). Section 51 and 59 of the 1976 Act requires the district council granting licences to be satisfied that the person applying is a fit and proper person.
Section 61 of the 1976 Act provides:
“(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1847 or in this Part of this Act, a district council may suspend or revoke or (…) refuse to renew the licence of a driver of a hackney carriage or 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 of this Act: or
(b) any other reasonable cause.”
Section 77 of the 1976 Act provides that section 300 to 302 of the Public Health Act 1936 have effect as if part of the 1976 Act. Section 300 in part provides:
“(2) The time within which any such appeal may be brought shall be twenty-one days from the date on which notice of the council's requirement, refusal or other decision was served upon the person desiring to appeal, and for the purposes of this subsection the making of the complaint shall be deemed to be the bringing of the appeal.
(3) In any case where such an appeal lies, the documentation notifying to the person concerned the decision of the council in the matter shall state the right of appeal to the a court of summary jurisdiction and the time within which such an appeal may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Essence Bars (London) Ltd t/a Essence v Wimbledon Magistrates' Court Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (Interested Party)
...Court has taken a strict approach to the 21 day statutory time limit for lodging appeals against licensing decisions. In Stockton on Tees BC v Latif [2009] EWHC 228 (Admin)it held that there is no jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit. It would, to say the least, be curious to ach......