Tribunal brings problematic rule to transport minister's attention

The Administrative Review Tribunal has flagged a problematic regulation that has precluded a bus driver from working because he had once forgotten to renew his driver's licence on time

The driver had told the magistrate's court that it was a case of genuine error, as his licence renewal had slipped his mind
The driver had told the magistrate's court that it was a case of genuine error, as his licence renewal had slipped his mind

The Administrative Review Tribunal has flagged a problematic regulation that has precluded a bus driver from working because he had once forgotten to renew his driver's licence on time.

James Agius had filed an appeal before the Tribunal after the Malta Transport Authority refused to renew his bus driver's permit, or “tag” on the grounds that he had been convicted for a traffic offence.

In fact, Agius had only been admonished by a magistrate's court in December 2015, for having failed to renew his expired driving licence and driving without a licence.

The driver had told the magistrate's court that it was a case of genuine error, as his licence renewal had slipped his mind. That court had accepted this excuse and had simply admonished him, without imposing further sanctions.

The Administrative Review Tribunal, presided by magistrate Charmaine Galea, Alfred Perini and Andrew Sciberras had heard the Malta Transport Authority - now Transport Malta - argue that Agius's conviction meant that he fell foul of the 'good conduct' requirement for the possession of the driver tag.

An applicant was not deemed to be of good conduct if was convicted of a traffic offence in the two-year period preceding his application, the Authority explained.

The Tribunal upheld the Authority's arguments, stating that despite a reprimand being one of the lesser punishments, it nonetheless implied guilt. This meant that the Authority had been right not to renew Agius' tag, as he did not satisfy the conduct requirement.

But the Tribunal was critical of the regulations and acknowledged that this decision could have meant that drivers could lose their licence and with it, their daily bread. There was “no balance” between the subarticles of the law which said that a person is not considered to be "of good repute" if he had either been convicted of a crime punishable by over three years’ imprisonment, a €465.87 fine or if he had been convicted, during the previous two years, of offences against traffic or road transport regulations. “One could be in contravention of regulations even if, for example, one has not affixed his road licence to the windscreen, which carries a punishment of €23.39,” the judgment points out.

Whilst rejecting the appeal, the Tribunal ordered that a copy of the judgment was to be delivered to the Transport Minister in order to bring the matter to his attention.