Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 46 (AAC)

Fecha: 01-Ene-2024

The appeal

The appeal

36.

Mr. Griggs appealed against the TC’s decision by a notice of appeal dated 7^th March 2023 and also applied for a stay of the decision.

37.

The grounds of appeal were as follows:

37.1.

There were additional positive features which the TC neglected to consider, namely:

37.1.1.

Mr. Griggs had held an operator’s licence since 2018 and no previous enforcement action had been taken.

37.1.2.

The 2020 DVSA records examination was found to be satisfactory.

37.1.3.

The MOT test history is excellent, with no test failures.

37.1.4.

He had fully accepted his wrongdoing and fully co-operated with the police.

37.1.5.

Other than the issues surrounding the swapping of cards, there were no other compliance issues found by the police when his records were examined.

37.2.

The TC was wrong to answer the Priority Freight question in the negative. He had based his answer solely on the conclusion that he could not be confident that Mr. Griggs would not react in the same way as he did on 21^st July 2021 if he found himself in similar circumstances and there was no justification for reaching that conclusion, particularly in the light of his finding that there had been no similar incident before or since and the mitigating circumstances he was aware of. He was also wrong to answer the Bryan Haulage question in the positive, given all the circumstances.

37.3.

The TC did not give Mr. Griggs or his representative an opportunity to make representations in relation to disqualification.

37.4.

It was not necessary or proportionate to revoke the operator’s licence and disqualify Mr. Griggs when the TC had already revoked his vocational driving licence. Mr. Griggs had already been stopped from driving heavy goods vehicles on the road and revocation of his operator’s licence took away all his means of earning a living.

38.

The TC considered Mr. Griggs’s application for a stay and refused it in a decision communicated by a letter from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner dated 13^th March 2023. The grounds for refusal were essentially:

38.1.

Mr. Griggs committed a very serious act of violence during a road rage incident and as a result received three prison sentences. The convictions are not compatible with remaining fit to hold an operator’s licence.

38.2.

In summary, he did not think there was merit in the grounds of appeal.

38.3.

He considered that Mr. Griggs posed a danger to other road users, “notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary”.

39.

Mr. Griggs renewed his application for a stay to the Upper Tribunal, but the application was refused by Judge Citron in a decision dated 22^nd March 2023. His reasons were similar to those of the TC, namely, that the grounds of appeal were weak and that the TC had identified a threat to road safety in the form of a risk that Mr. Griggs might repeat the conduct he displayed on 21^st July 2021.

40.

Mr. Griggs represented himself at the hearing before us. He was understandably not able to add a great deal to the grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal, but he stressed that the incident of 21^st July 2021 had been an isolated incident for which he had accepted responsibility and that he had done all that was required of him as a result. He drew attention to the lapse of time between the incident and the proceedings before the TC and said he had thought it was all over and done with. He also told us that the TC’s decision had cost him his firm because he had lost his vocational driving entitlement.