COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 31 July 1962)

§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, subsection (1) of this new clause provides that if information comes to the notice of a court which suggests that the accused person may be suffering from some disease or physical disability which is likely to make his driving dangerous, the court must notify the licensing authority which granted the licence, and also the licensing authority in whose area the accused person lives. In the course of the Report stage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, moved an Amendment which would have required courts to inform the licensing authority of any evidence that the person was suffering in that way, and I accepted the principle behind his 181 Amendment and undertook to frame it in rather more suitable drafting. This Amendment is the result.
The principle he suggested, of the court communicating with licensing authorities has been followed, but the present clause goes rather wider than the noble Lord suggested, in that it covers the case where actual evidence is not given—for example, when there is a plea of guilty and the facts of the case are stated by Whoever is conducting the prosecution. Of course, in many cases the licensing authorities are already informed by the police of disabilities which come to their notice, but the present clause puts that non-statutory arrangement on a statutory basis with the onus on the court to do it. I think it is an entirely approvable arrangement and it meets the point which the noble Lord made and in which your Lordships were interested. I beg to move.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, we, of course, welcome this Amendment, but I have one question that I should like to put to the noble Lord. He referred to proceedings in which a person might have pleaded guilty and the magistrates, or the court, might feel that the defendant had some physical disability or disease likely to impair his ability to drive. When the court make the report to the licensing authority are we to assume that it will inform the individual that such a report is being made? In such a case there may not be any evidence produced, and therefore, if the court is making this report to the licensing authority, I should have thought it right that the person should be so informed. Then, if he disagreed he would at least have the opportunity of obtaining a medical examination to prove to the contrary. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say whether a person on whom a report is made will be informed of the fact, and perhaps of the character of that report.

§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, again I do not think I can say offhand. But I should have thought that if there were a plea of guilty the accused would be aware of the circumstances affecting what he had done; and if part of the cause of the offence to which he pleaded 182 guilty included the fact that he was suffering from some illness or disability it would form part of his plea of guilty, Which he would not make if it were not true. Therefore, though the fact of the illness would not actually be offered in evidence, it might well be something of which the court ought to appraise the licensing authority. I should not have thought there was any possible injustice to the accused if that fact were being considered in support of a case to which he was pleading guilty.

§ LORD AIREDALE
My Lords, I should have thought it followed, as night follows day, that it was vitally important, as a matter of sheer courtesy if nothing else, that if the court are to inform the licensing authority that they think Mr. "A" is suffering from some physical disability they should also inform Mr. "A" that they propose to inform his licensing authority to that effect. I should have thought that was absolutely essential.

§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, I should have thought again—I think that the noble Lord has a reasonable point—that probably they will. I cannot say for sure. But I should have thought that if it is being stated in court that a man has had an accident, or done whatever he has done, and it is said that this was partly caused because he As blind in one eye, or has epilepsy, or something like that, and the man pleads guilty, he is not putting himself in a position where he is trying to defend himself from that disability.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, surely that is only when the person who has pleaded guilty has raised his disability as a mitigating circumstance, in order that it can be taken into account when a punishment has to be inflicted. The new clause here says: Where it appears to the court that the accused may be suffering…"; In other words, it may be the opinion of the court that this offence occurred because of a disability. According to this clause, they appear to be able to make such a report without stating so, when they award a punishment or acquit the individual. But it would still appear that, whatever they did, they could make a report that the man suffered from a disability. I think we must press upon 183 the Government that where a court does make a report of this character to a licensing authority the person involved should be informed that such a report is being made so that he can take whatever actions he may wish to take.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is making rather heavy weather of this, if I may say so. As I see it (I do not claim to be an expert) the licensing authority cannot do anything without notifying the person. It is only a question of the stage at which he is notified. No action can be taken without notifying him. I should have thought this was just a piece of operating machinery which should work very well.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, in spite of the noble and learned Viscount's remarks, I still think it is a duty of the court, if it is making such a report, to inform the person involved.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is overlooking the fact that the parson involved is before the count.