Hitchen, R (On the Application Of) v Oxford Magistrates Court

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a 78-year-old woman, was involved in a road traffic accident on 22 March 2012, colliding with several parked cars. The attending police officer reported to the DVLA concerns about a possible medical condition due to the Plaintiff appearing confused and having lapses of concentration. Subsequently, by letter dated 26 September 2012, the Plaintiff's driving licence was revoked by the DVLA under section 93 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, citing a possible chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or an undiagnosed medical condition.

The Plaintiff appealed the revocation decision to the Oxford Magistrates Court, which rejected the appeal following hearings in May and August 2013. After the magistrates refused to state a case to the High Court, the Plaintiff issued an application for judicial review on 31 October 2013 challenging the magistrates' decision as unlawful. Permission for judicial review was granted on three grounds following an oral hearing on 5 June 2014.

The appeal before the magistrates was a re-hearing on the merits, involving assessment of all relevant evidence, including that arising after the original decision. The Plaintiff was represented by Attorney Tomlinson QC, and the Secretary of State for Transport, as the interested party, was represented by Attorney Thomann. The magistrates dismissed the appeal on 2 August 2013, concluding that the Plaintiff was suffering from age related cognitive impairment and that the DVLA’s revocation decision was correct.

The Plaintiff provided expert medical evidence from a consultant physician, Dr Morgan, who conducted comprehensive cognitive and physical assessments and concluded that the Plaintiff had normal mental faculties with no evidence of age related cognitive decline or disability that would make her unsafe to drive. Despite this, the magistrates relied on an on-road driving assessment and expert evidence from Dr Pawley, a DVLA medical adviser, who opined that the Plaintiff’s unsatisfactory driving performance could indicate a relevant disability, possibly age related cognitive impairment, even if not apparent in clinical testing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the magistrates erred in law by applying a reasonableness standard of review rather than a correctness standard to the appeal.
2. Whether the magistrates failed to consider the statutory requirement under section 92(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 that the licence holder have a relevant disability likely to cause dangerous driving.
3. Whether the magistrates acted irrationally in ignoring or excluding medical evidence presented by the Plaintiff after the licence revocation on the basis that it was not indicative of her condition at the time of revocation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The magistrates applied the wrong legal test by focusing on the reasonableness of the DVLA’s conclusion rather than deciding whether the decision was correct.
• There was no evidence to establish the existence of a relevant medical or identifiable condition causing dangerous driving, and the inference of age related cognitive impairment was a fiction unsupported by the evidence.
• The on-road driving assessment, while relevant to driving ability, cannot substitute for medical evidence of a relevant disability.
• The magistrates irrationally excluded expert medical evidence from Dr Morgan, which demonstrated no cognitive impairment or disability.
• The Plaintiff sought quashing of the magistrates’ decision and reinstatement of her driving licence.

Interested Party's Arguments

• The magistrates applied the correct legal approach by conducting a re-hearing and assessing whether the decision was correct on the evidence before them.
• There must be evidence of both a relevant disability and a causal link to dangerous driving; the magistrates were entitled to infer age related cognitive impairment from the totality of evidence including the accident, Plaintiff’s demeanour, and on-road driving assessment.
• Age related cognitive impairment may not manifest in clinical tests but may be revealed by complex tasks such as driving, justifying reliance on on-road assessments.
• Dr Pawley’s expert evidence supported the inference of relevant disability, and the Honorary Medical Advisory Panel’s minutes endorsed the primacy of functional on-road assessments over clinical screening tests for cognitive impairment in driving contexts.
• The magistrates’ decision was not unlawful or perverse given the evidence presented.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed whether the magistrates applied the correct legal test. Although the magistrates referred to the reasonableness of the DVLA’s conclusion, the court found that their overall decision was based on whether the revocation was correct, consistent with the standard of a re-hearing. The court rejected the claim that the magistrates erred in law by applying a reasonableness standard.

The central legal question was whether there was evidence of a relevant disability—defined as a medical or identifiable physical or mental condition likely to cause dangerous driving—as required by section 92(2) and section 93 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The court emphasized that bad driving alone cannot establish a relevant disability without evidence of an underlying condition.

The Plaintiff’s expert, Dr Morgan, conducted thorough cognitive and physical assessments, including the Addenbrooke's test, and found no evidence of cognitive impairment or disability. This evidence was unchallenged and not rationally excluded by the magistrates. The court found that the magistrates erred by failing to consider whether the statutory requirement of an underlying relevant disability was satisfied.

The court examined the minutes of the Honorary Medical Advisory Panel, which were relied upon by the DVLA and magistrates. The court interpreted the minutes as emphasizing that age alone is not a reason to revoke a licence and that a medical diagnosis cannot be inferred solely from an on-road driving assessment. The Panel highlighted that clinical cognitive tests have limited correlation with driving ability and that functional on-road assessments are important, but these do not substitute for evidence of an underlying condition.

The magistrates’ exclusion of the Plaintiff’s medical evidence as not indicative of her condition was found to be irrational, given the unchallenged and comprehensive nature of that evidence. The court concluded that the magistrates’ decision was unlawful for failing to properly consider the statutory requirement of a relevant disability and for irrationally excluding relevant medical evidence.

Regarding remedies, the court declined to remit the matter to a fresh panel for re-hearing, as the existing evidence, particularly Dr Morgan’s expert reports, demonstrated no identifiable disability. Accordingly, the only rational conclusion was that the statutory test for revocation was not met.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final ruling was to quash the magistrates’ decision and reinstate the Plaintiff’s driving licence.

The direct consequence of this decision is the restoration of the Plaintiff’s licence, overturning the prior revocation upheld by the magistrates. The court did not establish any new precedent but clarified that revocation under the Road Traffic Act requires evidence of a relevant disability, not merely poor driving performance, and that medical evidence cannot be irrationally excluded. This decision reinforces the statutory framework requiring a medical or identifiable condition as a prerequisite for licence revocation.