APPEAL SYSTEM

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 72, Issue 6238, 5 June 1946, Page 11

APPEAL SYSTEM

EXPLANATION BY SIR FRANCIS FRAZER LICENSING AUTHORITY’S COMMENT A reply to cricitism of the.transport appeal system was made by the Appeal Authority (Sir Francis Frazer) when he commenced an open sitting of the authority in Christehurch on May 3rd. He also denied a number of statements made by Mr T. H. Langford recently, when he was No. 3 Transport Licensing Authority. It was undesirable that he should enter into a public controversy, and he did not intend doing so, said Sir Francis Frazer. In particular, if he referred to anything said by Mr Langford his remarks would be quite impersonal. He had a high regard for Mr Langford, who was a personpl friend and a fellow member of the rates fixation tribunal, and he appreciated that Mr Langford’s remarks, also, had not been intended as a personal reflection. However, there had been so much public misunderstanding and criticism that it was his duty to explain the appeal system. Documents coming before him consisted of official transcripts of proceedings before licensing authorities, he said, and written submissions by the parties or their solicitors. He also had any comments the licensing authorities wished to make. The department gave him a precis of particulars contained in these documents and reference to the appropriate licenses, and that was all.

It had been suggested, he said, that some slanderous letter was on the file when these applications were last dealt with by him. “I can only say there was nothing on the file beyond what I have already mentioned, and I did not see and have not yet seen that slanderous letter, and I do not want to. I am not interested in it, and if I had seen it through inadvertence on anybody’s part, I have a sufflcently high regard for Mr Langford not to be influenced by any such letter.” • Sir Francis Frazer said he would also make it clear that his decisions were neither suggested nor prepared for him. He had had 20 years’ experience. except for one short lapse of time, in hearing transport appeals, and believed himself competent to make and write his own decisions. It had also been suggested, though not by Mr Langford, that the appeal procedure was in the nature of the Star Chamber method'. That was quite incorrect. In accordance with the Act, appeals were dealt with from written papers forwarded to him, but he always gave reasons ,for his decisions, and full reports appeared always in “Transport News,” and were available to any newspaper wanting to publish them. With his brethren of the legal profession, he believed that if possible appeals should be held in open Court. But the procedure to the present time had been used to save time and expense, and was concurred in by the New Zealand Road Transport Alliance because dealing with appeals on the papers saved considerable expense and delay. It would be perfectly impossible for him to hear every appeal viva voce, he said, more especially if he had to go to every remote town and village visited by the licensing authorities. If all appeals were dealt with viva voce in Wellington it would mean considerable expense and inconvenience in taking witnesses and counsel to Wellington. In general, it was more satisfactory that appeals should be held in open court, but one had to consider that in these particular appeals in the great majority of cases there was no serious dispute as to facts, and in many cases the evidence was not controversial at all. What he had to decide was often purely a question of principle or law, and matters of that kind could be just as conveniently and justly dealt with on the basis of written submissions. If submissions seemed to indicate an attempt to bring in evidence not before the licensing authority, his practice was to send the case back to the authority with an instruction to re-hear it. He took similar action where evidence was insufficient and further evidence was required. Within recent months one or two alterations had been made in the procedure, as Government departments were sometimes involved in appeals. He had agreed that it was wise that those appeals should be heard orally unless all parties were agreeable to a decision on the papers. In such cases it was proper that parties should have the opportunity to appear personally. He would also be sorry to think that some might suppose that because his salary was paid by the Government he might be influenced by a party being a Government department. Regard had been given in reaching the decision to the old maxim that it was desirable that the administration of justice should not only be just, but should have the appearance of justice. He wouM arrange, and had in the past arranged, to deal orally with appeals where there was misunderstanding over the application of a principle. Sir Francis Frazer said he was informed that the Road Transport Alliance still preferred the more expeditious and cheaper method of having appeals dealt with on the files, except in particular cases wlrere oral hearings were best. In as far as time permitted he was glad to hear any appeal orally if there appeared to be a good reason for doing so. Sir Francis Frazer repeated that nothing personal was intended in his remarks, and said that though he thought Mr Langford had been mistaken as to the facts he did not doubt that Mr Langford had been moved by a sense of duty.

LICENSING AUTHORITY URGES. LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS • Agreement with the recently expressed view of the Transport Appeal Authority, Sir Francis Frazer, that there were weaknesses in the Transport Licensing Act was expressed on May 14th by the No. 4 Transport Licensing Authority, Mr V. Raines. “There are many weaknesses in the Act and the regulations and they are just about due for revision,” said Mr Raines. He agreed with the appeal authority that an operator should not be permitted to start in business when an appeal was to be heard. ' There was also no provision for parties receiving notice of intention- to jobject to the granting of a license. This should be brought into accord with the ordinary legal practice, the equivalent being notice of intention to ’defend in a magistrate’s court. A further omission was that there was no provision for compulsory attendance

of witnesses by subpoena or otherwise. There Was also no provision for grounds on which a rehearing might be granted. Referring specifically to Sir Francis Frazer’s comments, Mr Raines pointed out What he termed a tremendous fault in the Act. It was possible, he said, for an applicant to have his application heard and decided and an appeal to be heard and decided all within three or four months. Then the applicant was permitted under the Act to lodge the same application again, to be followed by the same appeal. This had happened in a rental cars case which had prompted Sir Francis Frazer’s comment.

' “This results in a tremendous waste of public money and valuable time,” added Mr Raines, who urged that When the Act and the regulations were being revised members of the legal profession experienced in transport should be consulted.