Witnesses Said To Be Reluctant

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31151, 30 August 1966, Page 18

Witnesses Said To Be Reluctant

Some representatives of large motor companies were reluctant to give evidence at administrative tribunals because of conflicting interests, Mr R. Stacey, a counsel for an objector, told the No. 9 Transport Licensing Authority (Mr J. S. Haywood) yesterday.

“Many hundreds of thousands of pounds are involved,” said Mr Stacey. Mr Stacey, who is opposing an application lodged by the Christchurch firm of E. H. Boyce and Company, Ltd., which seeks the right to start a South Island motor-vehicle transporter service, said the Authority had to deliberate on inferior hearsay evidence.

Mr Stacey said that the counsel for the applicant company (Mr H. W. Hunter) had every right to feel disappointed at the non-appear-ance of an important Dunedin witness last Thursday “but this is no more than I have frequently experienced.” In a protest submission last Thursday, Mr Hunter told the Authority that David Hanlon, a Dunedin distributor of vehicles for General Motors, Ltd., had been influenced against giving evidence at the hearing. Mr Hunter, in the submission, had said that Hanlon, who had in his possession an aflidavit from another Dunedin retailer, got as far as

Temuka on his way to Christchurch. He called into an office there and pressure was brought to bear and the witness returned to Dunedin. Mr Stacey said that motor companies often had a variety of reasons for not wishing to support tansport licensing applications but were keen to use the service offered if they were granted. He told the Authority that stipendiary magistrate had the power to hear claims up to £lOOO. “But you, sir, have to deliberate on applications involving many hundreds of thousands of pounds,” said Mr Stacey. Mr Stacey said that vital

witnesses should be invited politely under conditions that did not admit refusal.

The Authority agreed that considerations at transport licensing hearings could be so vast that they frequently exceeded claims heard in the Supreme Courts. Unlike civil courts, there was no right of subpoena.