Smith v Police Commissioner

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Robinson, P., Kerr and Carberry, JJ.A.)
• Judgment Date: 08 June 1981
• Court: Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 08 June 1981

Court of Appeal

(Robinson, P., Kerr and Carberry, JJ.A.)

SMITH

and

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

R.D. Alberga, Q.C. and S. McField for the appellant;

J. Martin, Senior Crown Counsel, for the respondent.

Cases cited:

(1) Associated Provncl. Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., [1948] 1 K.B. 223; 1947] 2 All E.R. 680.

(2) Baker v. R., [1975] A.C. 774; [1975] 3 All E.R. 55; (1975), 13 J.L.R. 169, dicta of Lord Diplock applied.

(3) Banks v. Transport Regulation Bd. (Victoria)UNK(1968), 119 C.L.R. 222, applied.

(4) Bazie v. Att. Gen. (Trinidad & Tobago)UNK(1971), 18 W.I.R. 113, applied.

(5) Bell v. Att. Gen. (Prince Edward Island)UNK(1973), 35 D.L.R. (3d) 265.

(6) Board of Education v. Rice, [1911] A.C. 179; [1911–13] All E.R. Rep. 36, dictum of Lord Loreburn, L.C. applied.

(7) Board of Health (Saltfleet Township) v. KnapmanUNK(1957), 6 D.L.R. (2d) 81.

(8) Buckoke v. G.L.C., [1971] Ch. 655; [1971] 2 All E.R. 254.

(9) Capel v. ChildENR(1832), 2 Cr. & J. 558; 149 E.R. 235.

(10) Cooper v. Wandsworth Bd. of WorksENR(1863), 14 C.B.N.s.180; 143 E.R. 414, followed.

(11) Daemar v. Hall, [1978] 2 NZLR 594, considered.

(12) De Verteuil v. Knaggs, [1918] A.C. 557.

(13) Durayappah v. Fernando, [1967] 2 A.C. 337; [1967] 2 All E.R. 152.

(14) Fairbairn v. Highway Traffic Bd. (Saskatchewan)UNK(1957), 11 D.L.R. (2d) 709, applied.

(15) Franklin v. Minister of Town & Country Planning, [1948] A.C. 87; [1947] 2 All E.R. 289.

(16) Fry, Ex p., [1954] 1 W.L.R. 730; [1954] 2 All E.R. 118, not followed.

(17) General Medical Council v. Spackman, [1943] A.C. 627; [1943] 2 All E.R. 337, followed.

(18) H.K. (an infant), In reELR, [1967] 2 Q.B. 617; sub nom. K. (H.) (an infant), Re, [1967] 1 All E.R. 226.

(19) Halliwell, fle (1965), 56 D.L.R. (2d) 754.

(20) Hlookoff v. Vancouver (City of)UNK(1968), 67 D.L.R. (2d) 119.

(21) Julius v. Oxford (Bishop of)ELR(1880), 5 App. Cas. 214.

(22) Klymchuk v. CowanUNK(1964), 45 D.L.R. (2d) 587, applied.

(23) Korytko v. Calgary (City of)UNK(1963), 42 D.L.R. (2d) 717.

(24) Lapointe v. L”Association de Bienfaisance, &c. de Montreal, [1906] A.C. 535.

(25) Leeson v. General Council of Medical Educ. & RegistrationELR(1889), 43 Ch. D. 366; [1886–90] All E.R. Rep. 78.

(26) Liversidge v. Anderson, [1942] A.C. 206; [1941] 3 All E.R. 338, considered.

(27) Local Govt. Bd. v. Arlidge, [1915] A.C. 120; [1914–15] All E.R. Rep. 1, followed.

(28) McInnes v. Onslow Fane, [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1520; [1978] 3 All E.R. 211, followed.

(29) Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Inmate Disciplinary Bd.UNK(1977), 74 D.L.R. (3d) 1.

(30) Merricks v. Nott-Bower, [1965] 1 Q.B. 57; [1964] 1 All E.R. 717.

(31) Nagle v. Feilden, [1966] 2 Q.B. 633; [1966] 1 All E.R. 689.

(32) Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne, [1951] A.C. 66, not followed.

(33) Osgood v. NelsonELR(1872), L.R. 5 H.L. 636, considered.

(34) Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, [1968] A.C. 997; [1968] 1 All E.R. 694.

(35) Petty. Greyhound Racing Assn. Ltd., [1969] 1 Q.B. 125; [1968] 2 All E.R. 545.

(36) R. v. Barnsley County Borough Licensing JJ., ex p. Barnsley & Dist. Licensed Victuallers” Assn., [1960] 2 Q.B. 167; [1960] 2 All E.R. 703.

(37) R. v. Barnsley Metropolitan B.C., ex p. Hook, [1976] 1 W.L.R. 1052; [1976] 3 All E.R. 452, followed.

(38) R. v. Beaver Creek Correctional Camp (Institutional Head)UNK(1968), 2 D.L.R. (3d) 545.

(39) R. v. Brighton Corp., ex p. TillingUNK(1916), 85 L.J.K.B. 1552, dictum of Sankey J. applied.

(40) R. v. Calgary (City of), ex p. SandersonUNK(1966), 53 D.L.R. (2d) 477.

(41) R. v. Cambridge Univ. (Dr. Bentley”s case)(1718), 1 Stra. 557; 93 E.R. 698.

(42) R. v. Canterbury (Archbishop of)ENR(1859), 1 E. & E. 545; 120 E.R. 1014, applied.

(43) R. v. Electricity Commrs., ex p. London Elec. Joint Cttee. Co. (1920) Ltd., [1924] 1 K.B. 171; [1923] All E.R. Rep. 150, dictum of Atkin, L.J. considered.

(44) R. v. Gaming Bd. for G.B., ex p. Benaim, [1970] 2 Q.B. 417; [1970] 2 All E.R. 528, dicta of Lord Denning, M.R. applied.

(45) R. v. Housing Appeal Tribunal, [1920] 3 K.B. 334.

(46) R. v. Hull Prison Bd. of Visitors, ex p. St. Germain, [1979] Q.B. 425; further proceedings (No. 2), [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1401; [1979] 3 All E.R. 545, considered.

(47) R. v. Industrial Injuries Commr., ex p. Amalgamated Engr. Union, [1966] 2 Q.B. 21; further proceedings (No. 2), [1966] 2 Q.B. 31; 1966 1 All E.R. 97.

(48) R. v. L.C.C., ex p. Akkersdyk, [1892] 1 Q.B. 190; [1891–4] All E.R. Rep. 509.

(49) R. v. Legislative Cttee. of Church Assembly, ex p. Haynes-Smith, [1928] 1 K.B. 411.

(50) R. v. Liverpool Corp., ex p. Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators” Assn.ELR, [1972] 2 Q.B. 299; sub nom. Liverpool Taxi Owners” Assn., Re, [1972] 2 All E.R. 589.

(51) R. v. Metropolitan Police Commr., ex p. Holloway, [1911] 2 K.B. 1131.

(52) R. v. Metropolitan Police Commr., ex p. Parker, [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1150; [1953] 2 All E.R. 717, not followed.

(53) R. v. Minister of Labour, ex p. General Supplies Co. Ltd.UNK(1965), 47 D.L.R. (2d) 189.

(54) R. v. Sunderland JJ., [1901] 2 K.B. 357.

(55) R. v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, ex p. BowerUNK(1967), 63 D.L.R. (2d) 286.

(56) R. v. WoodhouseELR, [1906] 2 K.B. 501; on appeal, sub nom. Leeds (Mayor) v. Ryder, [l907] A.C. 420.[l907] A.C. 420.

(57) Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40; [1963] 2 All E.R. 66, followed.

(58) Roncarelli v. DuplessisUNK(1959), 16 D.L.R. (2d) 689.

(59) Sharp v. Wakefield, [1891] A.C. 173; [1886–90] All E.R. Rep. 651, dictum of Lord Halsbury, L.C. followed.

(60) Smith v. R.ELR(1878), L.R. 3 App. Cas. 614, applied.

(61) Spackman v. Plumstead Dist. Bd. of WorksELR(1885), L.R. 10 App. Cas. 229, dictum of the Earl of Selborne, L.C. applied.

(62) Stininato v. Auckland Boxing Assn. (Inc.), [1978] 1 NZLR 1, considered.

(63) Walsall Overseer v. London & N.W.Ry. Co.ELR(1878), 4 App.Cas.30.

(64) Watt, ReUNK(1958), 13 D.L.R. (2d) 124, applied.

(65) Wiseman v. Borneman, [1971] A.C. 297; [1969] 3 AH E.R. 275.

(66) Wood v. Wood(1874), L.R. 9 Ex. 190; [1874–80] All E.R. Rep. 408.

Legislation construed:

Traffic Law (Law 16 of 1973), s.43: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 138, line 21 – page 139, line 3.

s.61: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 139, lines 5–24.

Civil Procedure-certiorari-application for leave to apply-ex parte proceedings to show arguable case-if substantive merits improperly argued in ex parte proceedings, facts accepted and parties treat appeal as hearing of substantive application, proper for court hearing appeal against refusal of leave to determine application on merits rather than remit to lower court

Road Traffic-taxi-drivers” licences-revocation-discretion of Commissioner of Police under Traffic Law, s.43(2) to be exercised according to full rules of natural justice-licensee entitled to notice of charges, hearing by unbiased tribunal and opportunity to be heard on charges and evidence

Jurisprudence-precedent-decisions of Privy Council-Court of Appeal bound to follow every part of ratio decidendi of decision of Judicial Committee-if two inconsistent decisions, entitled to follow the more convincing

The appellant applied to a judge in chambers for leave to apply to the Grand Court for the issue of orders of certiorari and prohibition against the Acting Commissioner of Police (a) to quash his order revoking her taxi-driver”s licence and (b) to prevent him from further hearing and determining any objection of the appellant against the revocation of her licence.

The appellant, a taxi-driver, had been convicted of possession of ganja. Without giving her any notice, the Acting Commissioner of Police revoked her taxi-driver”s licence. He neither stated his grounds for doing so nor gave her an opportunity to be heard on the matter. She then applied ex parte to a judge in chambers for leave to apply to the Grand Court for orders of certiorari and prohibition against the Commissioner but the application was refused. During the proceedings in chambers, the Acting Attorney General was allowed to appear on behalf of the Commissioner and to address the judge on the substantive merits of the case.

On appeal, and with respect to a preliminary procedural issue, both parties accepted that the Acting Attorney General had no right to appear at the ex parte stage of the proceedings. However, since there had been sufficient material before the judge for leave to have been granted to proceed with the application in the normal way, the respondent submitted that the court should not decide the substantive merits of the application but ought to remit the matter to the Grand Court for decision.

On the substantive appeal, the appellant submitted that (a) the Traffic Law, s.43(2), by stating that the Commissioner ‘may revoke’ a licence (rather than ‘shall revoke’), gave him a discretionary power of revocation in the exercise of which he had a duty to observe the rules of natural justice; and in particular, he was required to apply the audi alteram partem rule to its full extent; (b) by not having given the appellant any prior notice of his intention to revoke her licence, stated the grounds for revocation or provided her with an opportunity to be heard, he had abused this discretion and his order ought therefore to be quashed; and (c) even if s.43(Z) had not conferred a judicial or quasijudicial discretion but an administrative one, the Commissioner still had a duty ‘to act fairly’ which would involve equally an obligation to give notice of the charges or grounds for revocation and to entertain representations from the licensee before revocation.

The respondent, in reply, submitted (a) that the use of the term ‘may’ in s.43(2) in fact meant ‘shall’ and in effect this made the Commissioner”s power to revoke a licence of automatic application, provided that he was satisfied that the taxi-driver had been convicted of any of the offences specified in s.43(1)(c); (b) if this power were...