The High Court has ruled that a person’s receipt of disability allowance and inability to work more than 20 hours a week do not, by themselves, make it unlawful to grant a small public service vehicle licence.
Mr Justice Quirke delivered the judgment on 10 February 2005 in a case stated by a District Court judge in Cork. The judge asked whether a licence could lawfully be granted to an applicant receiving disability allowance whose medical evidence said he could not work more than 20 hours weekly, where the public would consequently lack a full-time and comprehensive service.
The applicant had sought a licence in December 2001. A Garda sergeant initially declined to recommend approval, citing an alleged failure to disclose an old larceny conviction, the applicant’s disability allowance, a pending personal injuries claim and concerns about his medical fitness. After the injury claim was resolved, the sergeant said the application would not be considered until the applicant stopped receiving the allowance and was deemed fit to lift luggage and assist passengers with disabilities.
The applicant’s legal advisers disputed that he had failed to disclose the conviction, relying on the Probation of Offenders Act, and submitted a medical report. The application was formally refused in May 2004 on the stated ground that the applicant’s back injury and continued receipt of disability allowance meant he could not meet passenger-service requirements. He appealed to the District Court.
At the appeal hearing, a further medical report said the applicant had made a satisfactory recovery but could not work more than 20 hours a week. The respondent argued that granting a licence would be contrary to public policy because the public would not receive a full-time service. The applicant argued that refusing him the chance to work in his chosen lawful occupation would interfere with his constitutional right to earn a living.
The High Court held that this right may be qualified for genuine social-policy reasons in the common good, and that the 1963 licensing regulations were valid. It said the licensing authority and the District Court on appeal have discretion, exercised judicially, to assess whether an applicant is a fit and proper person and meets the regulations. The duties to take reasonable safety precautions and assist with luggage may be relevant factors.
The court did not grant the licence or decide whether this applicant met the criteria. It held that if the District Court judge was satisfied, on the evidence, that the applicant was fit and proper and otherwise complied with the regulations, granting the licence would be mandatory. Subject to that qualification, it answered the legal question in the affirmative.