"A TRAGIC FARCE"

Chronicle (Levin), 19 March 1946, Page 3

"A TRAGIC FARCE"

-Press Association

APPEAL SYSTEM CRITICISED AUTHORITY'S COMMENT

By Telegraph—

CliKliSTCH U KCH, March 18. "A tragic t'arce" was one term used by No. Transport Licensing Autliority (Mr. T. H. Langford) today vvlien he ni ade an outspoken attaclc on tlie procedure followed in appeals against docisions of Transport Licensing Autliorities, contending that « the ap poals should be heard under the same coiulitions as ruled in Courts of justice. Mr. Langford declared: "1 am going to do more than sit in a chair in the otiice of the Commissioner of Transport or write letters. The whole system is not in aecordance vvitli British justice. * Mr. Langford said an officer of the Transport Department* in Wellington hau teleplioned an otiicer of the department in Christchurch asking whetlier there was anything sinister in one of tlie Authoritv's decisions. This was doscribed by Mr. Langford as '-'an insidious, rutten, libellous suggestiou. " Mr. Langford launched his attack at a sitting of No. 3 Authority today, when an application by C. L. Rhodes ca'lne before him. Appellant sought a new rental car licence, with authority to operate ten rental cars. lieniarking that the application had been broug'lit forward again soon after an adverse appeal decision, Mr. Lang.t'ord said that he had fresli evideuce as a resul.t oi' reports by an investigating oflicer, and he also wished to make some coiiimeiit 011 the transport appeal system in New Zealand. 4 ' Froiu time to tiine the Licensing Autliorities liave protested against the methods adopted, but with little lasting ell'ect, " he said. At the time when Mr. Semple was Minister, he had, at the request of the Licensing Autliorities, mstructed the Conimissioner of Transport (Mr. G. L. Laurenson) that nobody associated with an appeal sliould be allowed to make a direct approach to headquarters of tlie Transport Department, but that was not tlie position today. The present procedure was that appeal decisions wcre prepared by ohicers of the Transport Department and referred to the Appeal Authority (Sir Francis Frazer) for his acceptauee or otherwise. The Appeal Authority had to be guided by the opinions of these ofhcers of the department — "and tliev are uearly alvvays wrong. ' ' Mr. Langford declared: "It is as lopsided as anyone can possibly imagine. Wc liave been nearly ten years messing' about with it and I for oue am not waiting anv longer." Instance Quoted. Mr. Langford quoted an instance of •iwi appeal against a decision of a metropolitaii Authority. The appeal was upI licld, but tlie Authority stuck to its guns. Another appeal was inade and Sir Francis Frazer wisely decided upon a public hearing, which, Mr. Langford ttontiuucd-, was the only wav in which such cases should be conducted. The saine evidence was brought forward and the Appeal Authority had reversed i his decision. It was not Sir Francis Frazer but the system which was to blanie. Fvidence that the original appeal decision was prepared in the ofhce of the Transport Department was af- [ fordcd by the fact that tlie elerk prepariiig it had teleplioned Mr. Langford ' in Christchurch to discuss the rnatter. j " I upheld the metropolitan Authority, but* the advice given to Sir Francis Frazer was not to grant the licences i cciiicftnied, so that he blundered tem- | porarily in his finding, ' ' Mr. Langford j wnid.. Advocating tlie hearing of appeals in I public sittings, Mr. Langford said that i nucli a privilege should be available to j the humblest individual iu the land and iie was sure Sir Francis Frazer would agree with him if he had time to talce I »1] cases in this way. Submissions had ! been made that lie should receive a'si histancc.

Keverting to the appJication oy I Khodes, Mr Langford said that a letter luid been written from Greymouth lo Mr. H. J. Knight, secretary of the Rental Car Proprietors' Association, allcging' that RLodes, wliile in Greymouth, had made a statement that he was sure of getting further licences 011 March' 8. He had written to the Commissioner of Transport stating that he had been informcd by No. 4 Licensing Authority (Mr. Y Raines) that a Ietter submitte'd 011 appeal in Rhodes' case had been a reflection 011 lus integrity. The Commissioner in his reply had said that this statement was incorrect, as 110 such Ietter had been put in as a submission in Rhodes' appeal. Mr. Ivnight, liovvever, had called on him with the Ietter in question, and he h^d decided that it was a rnatter for the Minister. He had aceordingly passed it on, but fcad not retained a copy. was not evcn accorded the courteyy dud ±0 an office boy in being given

any opportunity to make any reply to this nasty, insidious suggestiou," added Mr. Langford. Describing certain offieers ot the Departnient in Wellington as "jaundicemiuded," Mr. Langford said: "Had it not been for the discussion with Mr. Raines, I would liave been in ignoranco .of this insidious, ro t ten, libellous suggeslion which has lingered in the minds of the Minister and others in Wellington. ' '