Golding v Secretary of State for Transport

An appeal under the statutory driving-licence scheme is a de novo assessment of whether the challenged decision was correct, on the material before the magistrates. The magistrates must reach their own conclusion rather than review the Secretary of State’s decision for rationality, proportionality or procedural fairness. They must identify precisely the relevant disability relied upon and explain its connection with the driver’s fitness at the relevant date. General references to medication, mental illness or past substance misuse are insufficient without an articulated evidential and legal link. Procedural defects in the original investigation ordinarily distract from the central appellate task and do not justify remitting the matter to the original decision-maker.

David Golding appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal by South Cheshire Magistrates of his statutory appeal under section 100 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Secretary of State had revoked his driving licence on medical grounds after receiving police information and a medical questionnaire referring to medication, mental-health history and historic alcohol and drug misuse.

The magistrates concluded that it had been reasonable for the Secretary of State to find a relevant disability and an immediate danger to the public. The central issues were whether the magistrates had applied the correct appellate test, whether they had identified the relevant disability with sufficient precision, and whether the Secretary of State’s investigative procedure was adequately fair.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted bench of magistrates.

1. Section 100 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 creates a complete appeal de novo. The magistrates must decide for themselves whether the Secretary of State’s decision was correct at the relevant date, having regard to all material before the court, including material not before the original decision-maker. Kavanagh v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall [1974] QB 624 was the principal authority for that approach.
2. The magistrates applied the wrong test. Their conclusion that it had been reasonable for the Secretary of State to find a relevant disability indicated an approach akin to judicial review of rationality or proportionality, rather than an independent determination of correctness.
3. The magistrates also failed to specify the relevant disability. They were required to identify whether the alleged disability arose from medication, mental illness, persistent alcohol or drug misuse, or another basis, and to explain how the evidence established unfitness to drive on the relevant date. A one-off dose of medication, an uncertain diagnosis, or a history of substance misuse could not be connected to that conclusion without adequate reasoning and, where relevant, reference to the guidance.
4. It was unnecessary to determine the fairness or adequacy of the Secretary of State’s original investigation. Focusing on that procedure would compound the error of treating the statutory appeal as judicial review. The magistrates should decide the substantive issue themselves and should not simply remit it to the original decision-maker.

The questions stated for the court were therefore either irrelevant or unnecessary. The appellant was awarded his costs in the magistrates’ court and on the appeal, subject to assessment if not agreed.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — [2013] EWHC 300 (Admin): appeal allowed; matter remitted to a differently constituted bench.
• South Cheshire Magistrates — 2 July 2012: statutory appeal against revocation of the driving licence dismissed.