TRANSPORT APPEAL.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20329, 12 June 1934, Page 10

TRANSPORT APPEAL.

Counsel’s Protest in Case at Nelson.

POWER OF AUTHORITY. Per Press Association. NELSON, June 11. When the caj;e of H. Anstice’s appeal against the Transport Licensing Authority’s cancellation of his license for the Christchurch-Nelson passenger service came before the Transport Coordination Board, counsel for appellant (Mr J. P. Hayes) protested against the -board hearing the appeal on the grounds that two of its three members were members of the licensing authority which decided on cancellation of the license. “First and foremost, I wish to protest against this board hearing the appeal,’’ said Mr Hayes. He described Section 17, sub-sections 1 and 2, of the Transport Act of last year 2s radical. “I have not been able to find anything like it in a diligent search,’’ he said. “It is not in the English Roads Act To go tack to anything like it in English law one has to go back to the Star Chamber.” The chairman (Colonel Sir Stephen Allen), smilingly: A bit before my time, Mr Hayes. Mr Hayes: Yes. But it led to a revolution and cost a king his life. Mr Hayes claimed that Section 17 of tlie Act did not empower a member of the Co-ordination Board to hear an appeal against the decirion of an authority of which he was a member. The board might hear the appeal, but not while including a member whose decision was being appealed against. In this case two of the members of the board were members of the licensing authority concerned. He protested against that jurisdiction. If the board decided to hear the appeal it would be necessary to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Revolutionary And Unjust.

“I hope to persuade the board that it has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal,” said counsel. “It would be futile to appeal to a board of three when two of its members have heard the case before. It is unthinkable, revolutionary and unjust.” It was against the principles of a court of justice. The section might read that the board could hear an appeal notwithstanding that any member should have been on a licensing authority, but even that did not carry it further than one member. If it had* been intended to allow two members, it would have said, “member or members.’’ If Parliament had had it suggested to it that it meant a man to hear an appeal against his own decision, it would have been horrified. It would be in the public interest for the board to take the case for the opinion of the Supreme Court. Suggestion Adopted.

After consideration, the chairman stated that the board had decided to adopt coiiHsel’s suggestion to send the matter to the Supreme Court. “It is an interesting and an important point and it is important that we should not hear it ourselves,” said the chairman.

The question to be submitted to the Supreme Court is: Has the Transport Co-ordination Board jurisdiction to hear the appeal, seeing that two mem bers of it were members of the licensing authority which ga\;e the decision appealed against.