[2024] UKUT 46 (AAC)

Having read the transcript, we agree that Mr. Marsh did not in fact make any representations on disqualification to the TC. We do not, however, agree that he had no opportunity to do so. We have seen nothing to suggest that Mr. Marsh was cut short in any representations he wished to make. He made perfectly clear that the effect of revocation would itself be to destroy Mr. Griggs’s business and the grounds of appeal do not suggest any further effect which would be produced by disqualification and which might affect whether or not the TC was right to disqualify Mr. Griggs.

In his decision the TC explained that in considering disqualification he had had regard to paragraph 105 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10. The relevant paragraphs in the March 2023 version are, we think, paragraphs 107 and 108, which offer guidance that when a licence is revoked the traffic commissioner will wish to consider disqualification and advise a starting point of 1 to 3 years where it is the operator’s first public inquiry. The TC explained that he regarded disqualification as appropriate in view of the “exceptionally serious” nature of Mr. Griggs’s conduct, which meant that it would make little sense to revoke the licence and immediately to entertain a fresh application from Mr. Griggs. The period of disqualification was at the lower end of the suggested starting point and, as noted earlier, expired at the same time as his conviction for assault became spent. We cannot say that the TC was plainly wrong in having taken that course.