Stace, R (on the application of) v Milton Keynes Magistrates' Court

In deciding whether a person is fit to hold a passenger-carrying vehicle driver’s licence, the decision-maker must have regard to the person’s conduct, considered in its proper context. The inquiry is not confined to convictions. It includes relevant conduct before and after conviction and asks whether the conduct affects the person’s fitness to drive passenger-carrying vehicles and the risks posed to passengers and the public.

An existing community rehabilitation order is not, by itself, a relevant consideration. A mental disorder such as depression is relevant only insofar as it bears on the likelihood of repetition of harmful conduct or the risk to the public. An appeal under section 119 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires the magistrates to exercise their own judgment.

The claimant held a passenger-carrying vehicle driver’s licence. Following convictions for assaults on his wife and failing to surrender to bail, the Traffic Commissioner revoked his licence and imposed an indefinite disqualification.

The claimant appealed to Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court. The magistrates dismissed the appeal, referring to the convictions, the continuing community rehabilitation order and the claimant’s depression. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the magistrates had taken irrelevant considerations into account and had failed to assess his conduct in the statutory context.

The central issues were whether judicial review was an appropriate remedy, whether the magistrates had applied the correct statutory approach to fitness, and whether the matter should be remitted or decided by the High Court.

1. Judicial review and alternative remedy. Judicial review was not inappropriate merely because an appeal by way of case stated would ordinarily have been preferable. Since the magistrates had provided reasons, it was unnecessary to obtain a case stated merely to discover the basis of their decision. The time for filing the claim was extended to the date of actual filing because the delay was explained and caused no detriment to good administration.
2. Statutory fitness inquiry. Under sections 112, 115 and 121 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the magistrates had to decide whether the claimant was a fit person to hold a passenger-carrying vehicle driver’s licence, having regard to his conduct. That conduct was not limited to convictions. It included his failure to attend the Traffic Commissioner’s hearings and his response to the community rehabilitation order.
3. The convictions had to be assessed in context. The relevant questions included the seriousness of the conduct, the risk of repetition, the connection between any propensity for violence and driving ability, and the risk to passengers and other members of the public.
4. The continuing existence of the community rehabilitation order was irrelevant in itself. The relevant matter was how the claimant had responded to the order. Depression was not automatically disqualifying. It was relevant only insofar as it affected the likelihood of renewed violence or the risk to the public.
5. The magistrates’ reasons did not show that they had applied that approach. Their decision was therefore legally flawed by taking account of the continuing order, failing to place depression in its proper context, and failing to assess the claimant’s conduct against his fitness to drive passenger-carrying vehicles.
6. An appeal under section 119 was not to be approached as a review of the Traffic Commissioner’s decision. The magistrates had to exercise their own judgment, although they could take account of the Traffic Commissioner’s reasons.
7. The claim succeeded and the magistrates’ decision was quashed. The appeal was remitted to Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court for a fresh hearing before magistrates who had not participated in the earlier appeal. The court declined to allow the appeal itself because the outcome following a lawful decision-maker’s reconsideration was not beyond doubt.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision. It reviews the decision of Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court dismissing the claimant’s statutory appeal from the Traffic Commissioner.