The High Court ruled that the Garda Commissioner acted outside his powers when revoking a taxi driver’s small public service vehicle licence over a conviction that predated the licence. It ordered that the revocation decision be delivered up for quashing.
In a judicial review judgment delivered on 10 November 2006, Mr Justice Herbert considered a decision made on 17 June 2004 to revoke the licence. The driver had received the licence in November 2002. The court’s order concerned the later revocation decision; it did not determine other issues the driver had raised, including legitimate expectation and the way the purported revocation power was exercised.
The driver had disclosed on his 2002 application that he had been convicted of assault, writing that the conviction was six years earlier and that there had been “nothing after that”. Garda records also showed convictions in 1986 and 1991. The judge found the application answer substantially correct and accepted that the driver was referring to the more serious assault incident in 1996, for which he pleaded guilty and was convicted in 1998. The judge found he had said and written nothing to mislead Garda authorities. An incomplete state of the Garda PULSE records contributed to the mistaken understanding during the licensing process.
The Commissioner later reviewed the grant after learning of the 1996 incident and revoked the licence. The notice said the authorised officer was not satisfied the driver was a fit and proper person. The High Court found that the revocation relied solely on the ground that the holder was “no longer” fit and proper, rather than on a conviction during the licence’s currency.
Justice Herbert interpreted that ground as applying to events since the current licence was granted. Because the assault and conviction occurred before the 2002 grant, they did not fall within it. The court rejected the respondents’ argument that a broader, purposive reading was needed to protect the public, finding the regulation’s wording plain and unambiguous. It therefore held the 2004 decision ultra vires Article 36(1) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicle) Regulations.
The judgment records that the revocation had been suspended pending the judicial review. The order at the end of the judgment directed that the decision be delivered up for quashing.