LGV and Passenger-Carrying Drivers’ License Scottish Appeal
Posted: Friday 8 October 2010
Holders of large goods vehicle and passenger-carrying drivers’ licences will be interested in a recent judgement from Dundee Sheriff Court in the case of Walker v Secretary of State for Transport and the Traffic Commissioner for the Scottish Traffic Area.
This case dealt with an appeal by the holders of three large goods vehicle driver’s licences against a decision by the Traffic Commissioner to determine they were unfit persons to hold these licences and as a consequence to suspend them from driving them for periods of two months and ten weeks respectively.
The circumstances here were that the drivers had not properly recorded all the time they had spent driving when they ought to have known they were on duty. Although the Court agreed that the drivers were unfit to hold the licence, it quashed the period of suspension and remitted the matter to the Traffic Commissioner to re-address the period of suspension. The Court held that the Traffic Commissioner’s failure to take into account the drivers’ conduct during the period between the investigation into the drivers’ misconduct and the hearing before the Traffic Commissioner was wrong. The Court recognised that it is well-established law that when the Traffic Commissioner is deciding whether an operator is fit to hold a licence, evidence of steps taken by the operator after the original referral by VOSA should be considered by the Traffic Commissioner before reaching a decision. Accordingly, the Court that the post-referral activities by drivers were relevant also, and as these had not been take into account by the Traffic Commissioner, the period of suspension should be re-assessed.
This is a helpful decision. In this case, the drivers received extensive additional training during the intervening period which had had the desired result. Drivers (and their employers) who face a hearing before the Traffic Commissioner will want to consider what remedial measures could be taken to make the driver a more fit person to hold a licence before the hearing, as this should be taken into account when the Traffic Commissioner makes the decision.
It should also be noted that in this case the Court also held that as the drivers only enjoyed mixed success in this appeal (the drivers failed to persuade him that the Traffic Commissioner was wrong to find them unfit persons to hold large goods vehicle licenses), they, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Traffic Commissioner should each bear their own legal costs for the appeal. Had the drivers only sought to contest the period of suspension, it is almost certain that the Court would have obliged the Secretary of State and the Traffic Commissioner to have made a contribution to the drivers’ legal expenses. This case also serves as a useful reminder that drivers, and those representing them, should consider carefully the scope of any appeal from the Traffic Commissioner: the consequences can be expensive.
For more information, please contact Ewan McGillivray.
