[2024] UKUT 46 (AAC)

We agree that the TC’s reason for giving a negative answer to the Priority Freight question was that he could not be confident that Mr. Griggs would not act in a similar way in similar circumstances. Mr. Griggs argues, in effect, that the TC had no reason to believe that he would not comply with the regulatory system generally and that he was not justified in forming the view he did of the risk that Mr. Griggs would act in a similar way in the light of his finding that there had been no similar incident before or afterwards and that there were mitigating circumstances.

In our view, this case is an example of one in which the Priority Freight question is not particularly helpful. We agree with Mr. Griggs in so far as he contends that there was no reason to conclude that he would not continue to comply with the regulatory requirements in relation to maintenance, record keeping and, once he had become aware of the relevant drivers’ hours and tachograph requirements, those matters, if he worked with another driver in future. We think that to the extent that there were mitigating circumstances, they would have been taken into account by the criminal court when passing sentence. We have sympathy for Mr. Griggs over his wife’s illness at the time, but difficult personal circumstances cannot justify exposing other road users to the risk of assault, threatening behaviour and unacceptable standards of driving. The difficulty with the Priority Freight question is that it is primarily designed to deal with an operator’s general disposition or otherwise to comply with the requirements of the regulatory system rather than with the risk of isolated outbursts of road rage at unknown intervals when under pressure.

Having made that comment, however, we conclude that it is clear that what the TC was considering was whether there was an unacceptable risk that Mr. Griggs would repeat his conduct in similar stressful circumstances. The TC saw Mr. Griggs giving evidence on two occasions and had the opportunity to see the video evidence. He expressly noted that Mr. Griggs’s “first resort” had been to violence and that, having once put the table leg away, he had returned to his lorry and taken it out again. In his reasons for refusing to grant a stay he explained that his confidence in future compliance was diminished by Mr. Griggs’s inaccurate evidence at the inquiry. The TC was well entitled to form the assessment he did of the risk presented by Mr. Griggs.

The TC then addressed the Bryan Haulage question and answered it in the positive, stating that the incident was so serious as to merit Mr. Griggs being put out of business. In the light of the findings the TC has made and his assessment of risk, his conclusion was understandable and reasonable.