The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
STATES OF JERSEY
STATES OF JERSEY COMPLAINTS BOARD: FINDINGS – COMPLAINT AGAINST A DECISION OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES (R.67/2013) – RESPONSE OF THE MINISTER
Presented to the States on 2nd August 2013 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee
STATES GREFFE
2013 Price code: B R.93
FOREWORD
Article 9(9) of the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982 requires the Privileges and Procedures Committee [PPC] to present to the States the findings of every Complaints Board hearing and the response of the Minister when a Board has asked a Minister to reconsider a decision. On 24th June 2013, PPC presented to the States the findings of a Complaints Board held on 7th June 2013 to review a decision of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services (R.67/2013). The Minister has now reconsidered the decision as required by the Board, and the Committee is therefore presenting his response to the States as required by Article 9(9).
REPORT
Having considered the comments in the Report (R.67/2013), I can now advise the States of the action I propose to take.
It was recommended at paragraph 5.8 of the Report that condition 11 of the Complainant's licence should be annulled and replaced with a version which is unambiguous, enforceable and as explicit as practicable. The existing conditions of the licence were approved by Ministerial Decision dated 18th January 2013. To revoke the Ministerial Decision would require the revocation of the Complainant's licence, which can only be done on the grounds at Article 10(1) of the Motor Traffic (Jersey) Law 1935, i.e. where the holder is no longer a fit and proper person or where the vehicle has been used or operated in contravention of a condition set out in the licence. It would not be right to revoke the licence on one of those grounds only to issue another licence, with amended conditions, immediately after.
In addition, it is not at all clear how the above recommendation is consistent with the Board's finding at paragraph 5.4 of the Report that there is nothing in law that enables the Minister to impose a rule that the cab can only operate in conjunction with the welfare of an animal. If there is some condition that in the Board's view could lawfully limit the cab service to an animal-related service, it would have been helpful for the Board to have suggested the wording that it considered acceptable. It is also unclear what condition would be acceptable to the Board given its comments at paragraph 5.5 of the Report regarding the viability of the business if the carrying of regular passengers is not allowed.
In light of the above, and bearing in mind his wish that the licence had never been issued, the Complainant will be invited again, as he has been already, to surrender his licence. The Complainant remains on the waiting list for an "ordinary" restricted taxi- cab licence and for the avoidance of doubt the grant of the conditional licence which is the subject of present focus (and the events surrounding it) have not altered the position that the Complainant would otherwise have occupied on that list. The Complainant will then be treated in the normal way based on his position in that list when making any further application.
Minister for Transport and Technical Services
APPENDIX