The Appeal
24.By a Notice of Appeal dated 8th April 2022, both Appellants appealed. Whilst there were three grounds of appeal set out in the Notice, only one ground was advanced at the hearing of the appeal:“The decisions of the Traffic Commissioner are, in all of the circumstances of the case, disproportionate”.In advance of the hearing, Mr Davies filed a helpful skeleton argument for which we were grateful. 25.At the hearing of this appeal, Mr Singh attended without an interpreter. Mr Davies’ first point was that the TC’s decisions that both Appellants had lost their good repute and that R&J’s operator’s licence should be revoked were disproportionate in all of the circumstances. Mr Davies accepted that the TC had not found Mr Singh to be credible or compelling as a witness and that adverse findings had been made with regard to breaches of undertakings to keep vehicles and trailers in a fit and serviceable condition, to ensure that there was an effective driver defect reporting system and that the laws relating to driving, drivers’ hours and tachographs were observed and proper records kept and made available. Mr Davies further accepted that the TC had found that Mr Singh had committed a gross breach of trust by his ongoing course of conduct between 7th September 4th November 2021. Be that as it may, the TC had stepped back from a finding that Mr Singh/R&J had been involved in “fronting”. Such a finding would have made revocation and loss of good repute inevitable. In the absence of such a finding, the TC’s remaining adverse findings did not. An extended period of suspension could and should have been imposed in the alternative (which Mr Davies considered had already been served in the absence of a stay) along with a significant indefinite curtailment with a full-time Punjabi speaking transport manager in place. 26.Mr Davies’ second point was that if the Tribunal were to find that the TC’s findings of loss of repute and the order of revocation were proportionate, the period of disqualification for both Appellants was disproportionate. Mr Davies referred to paragraphs 93 and 105 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No.10 “The Principles of Decision Making & The Concept of Proportionality”. He accepted that it was not unreasonable to place this case into the “Severe” category as set out in Annex 4 of Statutory Document No.10 but submitted that in moving up from the starting point of 5 years disqualification, the TC failed to give any weight to the positive features of the case (which were admitted to be scant). When pressed on where the Tribunal might find the positive features (over and above those identified by the TC and set out in paragraph 20 above), Mr Davies accepted that apart from the absence of a finding of “fronting”, there were none. Nevertheless, Mr Davies urged the Tribunal to conclude that the TC’s decision to move away from the starting point of 5 years was disproportionate and plainly wrong.