Hitchen, R (On the Application Of) v Oxford Magistrates Court
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE SIMLER
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Health Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a challenge to the revocation of a driver's license due to the claimant's alleged age-related cognitive impairment. Mrs. Justice Simler granted permission to appeal on three grounds: the wrong legal test, failure to link medical disability to unsafe driving, and rejection of later medical assessments, while refusing permission on one ground. The case highlights the importance of correct legal standards and the consideration of all relevant medical evidence in administrative decisions.
J U D G M E N T
1. MRS JUSTICE SIMLER: I do not propose to give a fully reasoned decision at this stage in circumstances where I propose to give permission in relation to grounds one, three and four. I will just give some short reasons for that and for refusing permission on ground two.
2. The claimant submits in relation to ground one that the wrong legal test was applied by the defendant in this case, because the defendant considered whether the DVLA were reasonable in their conclusion that the appellant was suffering from an age related cognitive impairment. The correct approach was of course for the defendant to consider whether the decision was correct in all of the circumstances known to the court at the date of the appeal.
3. Whilst it is right that the decision document is not to be read as a statute and single sentences are not to be taken in isolation, nor is infelicity of expression to be relied upon, having regard both to the statement of the magistrates (page 117 of the document in the document dated 2 August 2013) that the evidence and reports from the accident and driving assessment supports that the DVLA were reasonable and correct to revoke Miss Hitchen's licence and the statement in the conclusion paragraph "we believe that the appellant has not proved her case on the balance of probabilities", it is arguable that the defendant adopted the wrong legal test in this case. That concern is not entirely allayed by the bench chairman's reasons for refusing to state a case because, as Mr Tomlinson has emphasised, the question is not what conclusion the bench reached but what legal approach they adopted. In my judgment in those circumstances, there is an arguable case raised in relation to ground one.
4. As far as ground two is concerned, the central function of the magistrates is to determine for themselves on the material before them at the appeal hearing, whether the decision taken to revoke the licence on the date that it was made was correct. This is not a review jurisdiction. The decision to revoke made on 26 September 2012, referred in addition to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease -- which was not pursued -- to an as yet undiagnosed medical condition, and subsequent correspondence made clear that this was a reference to age-related cognitive decline. In the circumstances, an assessment of the likelihood of there being a condition impairing the driver's ability to drive safely was made. It was identified in the revocation decisi