Council succeeds in claim for public interest immunity in taxi licensing case

The Crown Court has accepted a council’s claim for public interest immunity (PII) in respect of material proposed to be deployed in appellate proceedings about the revocation of a taxi licence.

On 9 February 2018 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council revoked the licence of the respondent, who had first obtained a licence in 2000.

Sheffield Magistrates Court allowed the licence holder’s appeal on 18 May 2018, and the council has now appealed against that decision.

Counsel for Rotherham, Ben Williams and Freddie Humphreys of Kings Chambers, argued that PII was utilised on occasion in all forms of proceedings, including family cases, criminal cases, immigration cases and inquests.

A number of authorities were cited where the precise nature of the duties of the licensing authority were examined and it was argued that there must be an analogous power invested in the court to grant PII to material relevant to an issue to be determined when it is necessary.

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the court had no power to consider PII in this form of proceeding. She asserted that, absent a specific statutory regime – and she cited the system under the Justice and Security Act 2013 – there was no power to do as the appellant sought.

She also highlighted the concept of open justice and the rights of litigants under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Crown Court, comprising the Recorder of Sheffield and two JPs, decided that these appellate proceedings were amenable to a claim to PII.

The Recorder of Sheffield said there were three questions that the court had to consider:

1. Can PII be claimed in this form of appellate proceedings in the Crown Court in a licensing appeal?
2. If so, what are the principles that govern the decision?
3. Having applied those principles, is it right to grant PII to the material which has been made available to us?

The court concluded that there was no prohibition on the use of PII in this case.

“PII is not merely a procedural rule,” he said. “There are procedural rules in several jurisdictions as to how it is handled and processed, but that is not to be confused with the key legal principle which has its foundation in public policy and is also recognised by statute, that certain material may be withheld from another party to the proceedings, but made available to the court, providing it can be properly adjudged that disclosure of the material would be harmful to the public interest. It is for the court to adjudge the issue.”

The Recorder said the principles governing the issue were substantially the same regardless of the jurisdiction in which the PII claim is made. “It may, however, be claimed in any court or tribunal in our judgment. The procedural rules may be different, but the principles are the same. We reiterate, PII is not a procedural device, it is a rule of law in which procedures are in place to determine whether it can be properly claimed by a party.”

On the second question, the Recorder set out nine steps the court should take in approaching the issue. The court then concluded it was right to grant PII in this particular case.

Kings Chambers said: “Although not binding authority the judgment is likely to be of key interest to those working in taxi licensing.”

Ben Williams and Freddie Humphreys were instructed by Liz Anderton at Rotherham Council throughout the proceedings.