Hitchen, R (On the Application Of) v Oxford Magistrates Court

On an appeal against revocation of a driving licence, the magistrates’ function is to determine for themselves whether the revocation decision was correct on the material available at the appeal hearing. They do not exercise a review jurisdiction or merely assess whether the original decision was reasonable.

A licence cannot be revoked solely because an older driver’s driving is poor, without evidence of a medical disability likely to make driving dangerous. Evidence obtained after revocation may be relevant to the driver’s condition at the earlier date, particularly where the alleged condition is age-related and no evidence suggests recovery.

The claimant sought judicial review of Oxford Magistrates Court’s approach to an appeal against the revocation of her driving licence. The revocation referred to an undiagnosed medical condition, later identified as possible age-related cognitive impairment, and relied on evidence concerning driving performance.

The claimant argued that the magistrates had applied the wrong legal test, failed to address the statutory requirement for evidence of a medical disability likely to make driving dangerous, and reached an irrational conclusion about later medical evidence. Permission was sought on four grounds.

1. Permission granted in part. Permission to seek judicial review was granted on grounds one, three and four. Permission was refused on ground two.
2. The arguable issue on ground one was whether the magistrates had wrongly asked whether the DVLA’s conclusion was reasonable, rather than determining for themselves whether the revocation was correct in all the circumstances known at the appeal date. The magistrates’ appeal function was not a review jurisdiction.
3. Ground two disclosed no arguable error. The revocation decision referred to an undiagnosed medical condition, and subsequent correspondence identified that condition as age-related cognitive decline. It was open to the magistrates to consider whether the subsequent evidence established that condition.
4. Ground three was arguable because poor driving, without medical evidence of a disability likely to make driving dangerous, could not lawfully justify revocation. An approach permitting an older driver’s licence to be revoked on the basis of poor driving alone would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and would produce an impermissible distinction between older and younger drivers.
5. Ground four was also arguable. Later evidence showing no cognitive impairment could logically be relevant to the claimant’s condition at the earlier revocation date. Given the alleged age-related nature of the condition, the magistrates’ conclusion that the later evidence was not indicative of the earlier condition could be irrational absent compelling contrary evidence or evidence of recovery.

The claimant applied for judicial review of the decision of Oxford Magistrates Court concerning revocation of her driving licence. The Administrative Court granted permission on grounds one, three and four and refused permission on ground two.