Peter James Miers v. The Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club
|
CACV000137A/1982 Headnote The Appellant had been refused a license by the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club to ride in races organised by the Club. There had been an appeal to the Stewards of the Club who upheld the decision of the Licensing Committee. It was argued that the Stewards had acted in breach of the rules of natural justice in that -
Held : in the circumstances there had been no breach of the rules of natural justice.
BETWEEN
__________________________________ Coram: Hon. Cons, Fuad, JJ. A. & Power, J Date: 23 December 1982 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ Cons, J. A. : 1. All horse racing in Hong Kong is conducted under the auspices of the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club and administered by the Stewards of the Club in accordance with their published rules. Although the rules are apparently amended from time to time the present version came substantially into force in 1971, which was the first year that professional jockeys were allowed to take part in the racing. 2. To avail himself of that privilege a professional jockey must first obtain a licence from the Stewards. Rule 61 provides :
3. The Stewards do not, and did not in 1971, discourage application from jockeys overseas. They recognise that "persons applying from overseas for licences, whether as jockeys or trainers, may have expertise which when disseminated amongst those engaged in the sport of horse racing in Hong Kong will lead to a gradual raising of the standards of horse racing here". The Stewards however now insist that expatriate jockeys shall be on a retaining agreement with a licenced trainer and, more importantly, they have at all times expected the expatriate jockeys to make a greater contribution to the sport in Hong Kong than is demanded from others. 4. One of the initial expatriate jockeys was Mr. Peter Miers, the plaintiff below and the appellant before us. He came from Australia where he had enjoyed considerable success as an apprentice and then as a professional jockey. He obtained a licence from the Stewards, raced in that first season of 1971/2 and in every succeeding season up to, but not including, the present. He has, I think, also on occasion raced during this time on other courses. When he first came he brought with him his wife and three children who have remained with him ever since. He has thus made his home in Hong Kong as well as the bulk of his living. 5. Mr. Miers is not riding in this present season because the Stewards have declined to issue him a licence. That is a matter said to be within their absolute discretion. Rule 1(ii) provides:
6. It has not been thought necessary in this appeal to challenge that rule itself, for the Stewards did in fact give reasons for their decision. They said :
7. In order to understand those reasons properly it is necessary to set out a little history. The starting date is the 27th April 1980. On that day Mr. Miers rode a horse by the name of "Honey Grove", which was slowly away at the start. The Race Stewards held an enquiry. Mr. Miers explained to them that it was the first time that he had ridden that particular horse and that it was also the first time that that horse had been raced; further that although the horse had stood well in the barrier "when the gates opened he just did not jump". We do not know whether the Stewards accepted that explanation or not. They appear to have had more than that one incident on their minds, for the warning they then gave Mr. Miers was a general warning "concerning his record at starts". That is how it is put in the official record. 8. Those words were repeated in a letter sent some two weeks later by the Racing Secretary of the Club:
9. Nevertheless, Mr. Miers' licence was renewed for the next season, that is 1980/1, during which there was no complaint, at least as to his starting habits, and again for the following season, that is 1981/2. 10. It is apparently the practice of the Stipendiary Stewards to call a meeting of all jockeys prior to the start of a new season. Such a meeting was held on the 17th September 1981. The Senior Stipendiary Steward addressed the assembled jockeys at some length. He closed with this general, but firm, warning :
11. I may interpose here that at no time has the integrity of Mr. Miers been questioned in any way. 12. It was in fact long before the end of the season that the Licensing Committee came to take stock in, relation to Mr. Miers. He was called before them on the 21st October. The Chairman's words are recorded as follows :
The Chairman then suggested three possible reasons and continues :
13. Mr. Miers attempted to explain that there were a lot of difficult horses in the stable by which he was retained and mentioned many by name, but the Committee were unwilling to enter into any kind of discussion. 14. Several criticisms have been made of the manner in which that meeting was conducted but it is not necessary for us to consider whether or not they are valid. Mr. Ching, who appears for the Club, does not seek to support the decision of the Stewards by reliance upon the actions of the Licensing Committee in any way. 15. On the 27th January this year, the Race Stewards for that day thought fit to enquire into the start of a horse called "Semper Laetus". Their conclusion, and another warning, are recorded as follows :
16. Towards the end of the season the Licensing Committee were obviously giving provisional consideration to the issue of licenses for the following season. On the 26th April they sent a letter in the following terms to six expatriate jockeys, one of whom was Mr. Miers :
17. A few days later each of the jockeys was supplied with a resume of his riding and disciplinary record for that and the preceding three seasons. 18. Mr. Miers attended the meeting and took with him an eight-page typewritten memorandum in which he had sought to justify his record and to meet what he thought might be the matters which were causing concern to the Committee, and in particular with what was said to be his poor performance at the start. He left that memorandum with the Committee for their perusal. 19. Again suggestions have been made that this meeting was not satisfactory from Mr. Miers' point of view, but again, and for the reason that I have mentioned earlier, it is not necessary for us to consider whether or not that was so. 20. The following day, that is the 12th May, the Committee's provisional conclusion was communicated to Mr. Miers :
21. Identical letters were sent to three of the other Jockeys who had been similarly called before the Committee. Nevertheless, Mr. Miers, and those other three, lodged applications for licences. That was on the 19th May. On the 20th, all the applications were rejected. The letter to Mr. Miers was in these words :
22. Despite the last sentence of that letter, Rule 156 does not in fact provide for an appeal from a decision of this kind. It is limited to incidents that occur in or in relation to a particular meeting. However, following representations by those acting for the four jockeys, the Stewards of the Club agreed that there should be an appeal under Rule 2, which covers cases not provided for in the rules. It was apparently further agreed that the appeal should take the form of a re-hearing before a panel chosen from those Stewards who did not sit upon the Licensing Committee and that it should follow more or less the pattern adopted in civil proceedings in courts of law, with both the Club and the jockeys being legally represented. 23. The hearing took place can the 19th, 21st and 23rd of July. There were impressive legal teams on either side, teams which have remained the same throughout the subsequent legal proceedings. The appellate panel also had a legal adviser who was to take no part in their deliberations but was to be available if the Stewards should need advice or a ruling on a point of law. At the conclusion of the hearing the Stewards adjourned to consider. This would have to take time because of their business and other commitments which would take some of them away from Hong Kong for a whiles. It was hoped that a decision "with some accompanying reasoning" could be given by the 25th August. In fact the Stewards bettered that date by two days. On the 23rd august they allowed one of the appeals, that in relation to a Mr. Brunet. They dismissed the other three. 24. Mr. Mires, not being satisfied with that decision, applied by way of originating summons to the High Court for a declaration that the Stewards decision not to renew his license was void (and for certain remedies if the Court should take that view). The grounds argued in support of that application were :
25. The learned judge below declined to give that declaration and the matter comes again before this Court. Grounds (1) and (4) are no longer pursued. But it is still said that the Stewards failed to give adequate reasons to support their decision and that there was in fact no evidence before them reasonably capable of supporting that decision. It is further said that Mr. Mires was misled by the course of the conduct of the enquiry into not calling particular evidence that was then available to him and which might have affected the outcome. 26. The basic line taken on behalf of Mr. Miers before the Stewards and maintained both below and in this Court is twofold. Firstly, that generally speaking slow starts do not reflect upon the competence of the jockey and secondly, that each individual slow start in Mr. Miers' record can be sufficiently explained. 27. For the first proposition Mr. Henry, who appears for Mr. Miers, relies principally upon the evidence of Lord Oaksey a gentleman with an impeccable record in relation to horses. Born into a family closely connected with racing, he was in his earlier years a leading amateur rider under National Hunt Rules and since then has participated full time in the sport as journalist, racing correspondent and TV commentator. His evidence established, in the submission of Mr. Henry, that because there may be other factors involved a slow start can never be an indication of a jockey's ability, and that slow starts ought never to be taken into consideration by the Stewards except in enquiries into the running and riding of particular horses. 28. That certainly seems to be the position in the United Kingdom, where according to Lord Oaksey to refuse a licence merely because the jockey had a long record of slow starts would be unheard of. Provided he is honest and competent they are, it seems, content to let his finer skills be judged by those who may consider whether or not to engage him. In Hong Kong on the other hand the Stewards are disposed to exercise much tighter control and in particular as I have mentioned earlier, to call for a higher measure of ability from those who come from overseas. That is a matter of policy for the Stewards of the Club and the Courts would not presume to interfere. 29. Nevertheless if the evidence did establish that on no occasion could a slow start be laid at the door of the jockey's lack of ability then of course if would be quite wrong for the Stewards to take slow starting into account when assessing whether or not a particular jockey was up to the standard they required. The Courts then would be entitled to interfere. 30. In my opinion the evidence of Lord Oaksey does not go that far. He would attach importance to the nature of the horses concerned, for some horses are highly excitable in the starting box, and some, quite the opposite, tending to stand flat-footed when the gates are opened. There might also be he said, tactical reasons for wanting other horses to be in front at the start. Then he concluded :
He does not say that the jockey can never be at fault, and it may be noted in passing that the Stewards did later look at the records of the horses - at least of most of them - and that the trainer concerned - Mr. Burns - did give evidence. 31. Lord Oaksey was not cross-examined on this aspect of his evidence Counsel for Mr. Miers therefore thought it unnecessary to raise it with his next witness, a Mr. Killian, another gentleman of great experience in horse racing and who has for many years now been a Stipendiary Steward of the Australian Jockey Club. I have however no reason to think that his evidence would have gone any further than that of Lord Oaksey, any more than did the subsequent evidence of Mr. Burns. It is, after all, a matter of common sense. Of course no jockey can be better than his horse. But that does not mean he cannot influence his horse or that on any particular occasion he could not have done better than in fact he did. It may be that the horse is more often than not to blame. Mr. Burns, when asked if the cause of a slow start was usually the horse or the jockey, said "Unhesitatingly I would say that the horse got a bigger percentage on his side". Even so, there is still some percentage on the jockey's side. As I read the evidence the character of the horse, or horses, is an important consideration. It was not shown however to be exclusive. 32. If therefore over a period of time a particular jockey has an unduly high number of slow starts the Stewards would be justified in coming to the conclusion that there was something at fault with his technique in that particular part of the race. What was or was not unduly high in any given instance would be a matter for the Stewards themselves taking into account, of course, whatever explanation might be put forward. 33. In his memorandum to the Licensing Committee Mr. Miers listed horses on which he had been reported slowly away in the last two seasons. They were twenty in number. Several had been involved more than once while others appeared in only one of the two seasons. Before the Stewards both Mr. Miers and Mr. Burns spoke as to their characteristics. One of them was a horse by the name of "Big Chief" who figured on six occasions. Mr. Burns comment on him was that he could not be moved (in the starting box) unless someone went behind him with a cow prodder. Two other jockeys had ridden him once each this last season and each had been reported slowly away. "Scotch Flight", Mr. Burns called "a dreamer", who "would always be a slow beginner so long as he lives". There were two others- "Honey Grove" and "Bally Native" - which had been accepted by the Licensing Committee on the 21st October as having "a record of being slowly away with the jockeys". Mr. Miers described "Twilight" as a "notorious bad starter" who "has never jumped cleanly or in front, ever". Mr. Burns described him as "mad" and "erratic", "a dangerous horse". Both agreed that in fact this horse raced better when he started badly, although curiously neither said that that had ever been done deliberately. 34. As to the others, the evidence did not seem necessarily point to the horse as being slow starters For example, both "Speedy Wongchoy" and "Emerald Fortune" were said to be, on the occasions complained of, on their first races of the season and to be nervous. "Moonlight" needed "barrier assistance", which I take to mean being helped into the box. "Davis Sea" was a "broken down horse". "Jordashe" had managed, on one occasion and under another jockey, to get at least partly over the gate before it was opened. "Jack 0' Lantern" had a couple of times broken through the gate. 35. There were a few of the occasions reported where Mr. Miers was inclined to think that his start was not in fact slow, and finally there were several horses who were not mentioned at all. 36. I have dealt with this evidence merely as it has been recorded. How much was accepted by the Stewards and what weight was given to that which was are matters entirely for them. 37. It is suggested however, that when they came to deliberate upon their decision they must have either ignored or completely overlooked this evidence, that the choice of the words "we do not see an improvement in the record of Jockey Miers at the start since 21 October 1981" to express the substance of their reasoning indicates that all they did was to add up the number of slow starts reported after that date to put them against the total number of starts and to compare the result with the figures reached earlier by the Licensing Committee. Even then it is said the Stewards would be wrong, for even without allowing for known bad starters among the horses the ratio of 1 : 6 found by the Licensing Committee had improved to 1 : 7. If "Honey Grove" and "Big Chief" were excluded the ratio would be 1 : 12. 38. I do not think the words of the Stewards are to be read in that way. I take the reference to the 21st October to have been made merely because that was the date of the last of several warnings which had been given to Mr. Fliers and which the Stewards had just recited to indicate that this was not the first time that this aspect of his riding had been called in question. I am not prepared to accept that the Stewards would have ignored or overlooked the evidence. It formed a substantial part of the hearing and they had been specifically reminded of five named horses in the final submission of Counsel. I appreciate that they make no reference to it any more than they do to the evidence of Lord Oaksey. But there is not expected from a domestic tribunal the same detailed recital of evidence and the comments thereon that is expected from a court of law. In my view what the Stewards really mean by that sentence is this, 'Mr. Miers lost his edge at the start some time ago and his record shows that he is not getting it back.' I am not persuaded that no reasonable panel of Stewards could in the circumstances have come to that conclusion. 39. When the matter came before Mayo, J. below, the point was apparently made for the Club that Mr. Miers had not provided the Stewards with an explanation for each and every one of the slow starts. As I mentioned earlier some horses were not dealt with at all. 40. No submission on that line had been made before the Stewards. Indeed there had been no cross-examination at all upon the particular horses or upon the evidence of Lord Oaksey in relation to the start. Because of that lack of challenge Mr. Henry suggests that the Stewards were, and that we now are, bound to accept that evidence as being correct. Alternatively, that by tacit acceptance of the course expressly adopted by Mr. Ching, the Stewards, albeit unwittingly, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice which deprived Mr. Miers of a fair hearing.
41. The last witness referred to was a Mr. Robertson, another trainer who had given evidence on behalf of Mr. Burnett and had spoken with regard to the question of "the results you have achieved", a matter of concern to the Licensing Committee in respect of all the four jockeys but with which we have not been troubled because, presumably, the Stewards were satisfied as to this aspect. 42. If I understand Mr. Henry's argument correctly, the Stewards at that stage ought to have said something to this effect : "although Mr. Ching, you may not be concerned about the characteristics of those particular horses, we would like it to be known that we are"; that as the Stewards did not say anything of this kind Mr. Miers was induced not to deal with each and every horse nor to call for the films of each and every incident nor to have his experts Lord Oaksey and Mr. Killian comment thereon to the Stewards. 43. We are referred to three cases the first is Moxon v. Minister of Pensions(1). That was a case where a Pensions Appeal Tribunal acted on information passed to them privately by their own medical member. That information was held not to be "evidence" within the meaning of the appropriate legislation, the essence of "evidence", when used with reference to judicial or quasi-judicial matters, being that it consisted of oral statements or documents made in the presence of or communicated "to both parties before the Tribunal reaches its decision. I do not think the case assists in the present context. 44. The second authority is Rex v. Paddington and St. Marylebone Rent Tribunal (2). A Rent Tribunal had purported to reduce the rent of eight flats in a large block known as Park West. The landlords applied for an order of Certiorari to bring up and quash the order of the Tribunal upon two grounds. They succeeded on both but it is only the second that need concern us here -
45. The third case is M. K. S. Seyed Mohamed Shareef v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian and Pakistani Residents(4). The facts of this case are not easy to follow. Mr. Shareef applied in Ceylon for citizenship of that country. He would have been entitled to that if he could establish certain residential qualifications. In the circumstances he was required to satisfy a Deputy Commissioner of Immigration that he did in fact possess those qualifications. The enquiry by the Commissioner was spread over several attendances separated by some months. At the first hearing, the Commissioner became suspicious of a school certificate - known as a "Q schedule" - produced by Mr. Shareef in support of his own evidence. The Commissioner directed an enquiry to be made as to its genuineness. As a result, he received a report from an investigating officer and a letter from the Director of Education to the effect that the Q schedules were not genuine. However, some months later the Director of Education, upon further investigations made on his own behalf, changed his mind and wrote to the Commissioner that after all the Q schedules were genuine. In the meantime, and after receipt of this letter, the Commissioner continued with his enquiry and it was only after the evidence had been closed and on the last day of the hearings that he disclosed this later letter to Mr. Shareef and his legal adviser. The legal adviser then handed in a written submission relying upon the Q schedules as being genuine, a matter which he said "is now put beyond doubt by the authoritative letter of the Director of Education". Nevertheless, the Commissioner rejected that opinion, preferring instead the earlier report to the contrary, and he refused Mr. Shareef his registration. 46. The Privy Council took the view that the Commissioner was wrong to do that without making known to Mr. Shareef at the time his doubts concerning the Q schedules -
47. However, that was not the sole ground on which their Lordships advised that the Commissioner's order should be quashed. Other matters they took into account were that the Commissioner's original suspicions were ill-founded, he having been mistaken as to the date; that the original report had at no time been disclosed to Mr. Shareef and that despite the non-disclosure the school teacher whom he called to give evidence in his favour was cross-examined by the Commissioner on the basis of what was contained in the report; and finally that although the Commissioner was under a duty to ascertain the truth in his enquiry, he was prepared to disregard the opinion of the officer on whose report the Director of Education's later conclusion was based without even hearing his evidence. In the light of all that they said :
48. In my view, the present circumstances come nowhere near the circumstances of those two cases. The Stewards did not come to their conclusion by relying on something which had not been discussed at all before them, as did the Paddington Tribunal. It was a question of what weight should be given to matters which had been discussed at some length. Nor can I see that either Mr. Ching's failure to cross-examine Lord Oaksey upon slow starts generally and the other witnesses upon the particular horses, or the Stewards' silence in face of his expressed intention not to do so, or even these matters taken together, were sufficient to warrant the assumption by those advising Mr. Miers that the Stewards were thereafter conclusively satisfied in those respects. I also note that subsequent to Mr. Ching's comment, Mr. Miers was taken painstakingly through most of the horses concerned. And in his final submission to the Stewards, Mr. Rodway was still seeking to persuade them that to judge a jockey's competence by the sheer number of his slow starts was in principle wrong. He put forward Lord Oaksey as "a witness of considerable merit" whose views the Stewards would "no doubt wish to listen to with care", not as a witness who must be believed because his evidence was not being challenged. I am for my part satisfied that Mr. Miers was given a fair hearing. 49. For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.
(1) (1945) 1 K.B. 490 (2) (1949) 1 K.B. 666 (3) (1911) A. C. 179 (4) (1966) A. C. 47 Fuad, J.A. : 50. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment just delivered by Cons, J. A. in draft and agree that this appeal should be dismissed. His review and analysis of the facts, issues and arguments makes it possible for me to state my observations quite shortly. I would say at the outset that at the heart of the issues raised by this appeal is the extent to which a court can properly exercise its supervisory function over an authority such as the Jockey Club which by its constitutional instruments is given an absolute discretion whether to grant or refuse to grant a licence to a jockey, and where no provision is made for an appeal to a court of law against such a decision. The purpose of the proceedings before the High Court and now before this Court was not to review the merits of the decision of the Stewards but the way in which it was reached, for to attempt the former would be to usurp the functions entrusted to the Stewards. Although it was in a dissenting speech, so far as I am aware what Lord Evershed had to say, in Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A. C. 40, at p.96 has never been doubted, and in my respectful opinion strikes the right note of caution -
51. The extent to which the Stewards of the Jockey Club are bound by the rules of natural justice when entertaining a licence application by a jockey does not fall for consideration. They agreed to give Mr. Miers a fair hearing and there cannot be the smallest doubt that they endeavoured to do so; and, indeed, no complaint is made about the appellate Stewards integrity. The following needs to be noted -
52. I will now turn to the reasons that he appellate Stewards gave in writing. I will first remark that in my judgment it would be quite wrong to insist that a tribunal of the kind in question should analyse the evidence before them and give a considered judgment of the kind expected from a court of law. This would be to set an inappropriate and unrealistic standard. The Stewards began, as they must have done, by setting out very clearly what evidence and other material they had taken into consideration when reaching their decision; they set out the enabling power in the Rules to grant and refuse licences; they stated that they saw no ambiguity or difficulty in the Rules that provided that "Every application for renewal of a licence...shall be treated and regarded in all respects and for all purposes as if it were the first application by the applicant for such a licence ...", and that they were not prepared to hold it invalid; they explained why they considered expatriate jockeys should also be affected by that rule; they set out the history of the events which led to the hearing before the Licensing Committee; they said why they rejected the criticisms (now no longer relevant) levelled at the procedures followed by that Committee; they set out the reasons given by the Committee for refusing Mr. Miers a licence; and finally gave their own reasons for agreeing with the Committee. 53. I have no hesitation in concluding that having regard to all the circumstances and bearing in mind the functions of the Stewards, these reasons were perfectly sufficient. They were there, in effect, to decide whether or not Mr. Aliens should be granted a licence for the current season. They are entitled, in my view, as Stewards to set standards upon which they will insist (standards which might be higher for expatriate jockeys) provided these are not capricious or arbitrary. They are also entitled, if they act only on the evidence and material before them, to decide that a particular jockey does not meet (in the case of a first licence) or no longer meets (in the case of a renewal) such standards. They are fully justified in bringing to bear upon their deliberations their accumulated knowledge, wisdom and experience as Stewards. Based on this expertise they may evaluate and draw conclusions from the evidence before them in a manner which outruns analysis and which might not be open to a court of law. They must not, of course, decline to consider expert and other evidence that is put before them, but a reviewing court in my opinion exceeds its powers if in examining the proceedings to determine whether there has been procedural regularity, it attempts to review the mental processes of the decision makers when they have reached a conclusion clearly open to them. 54. Of course, as a long and unbroken line of authorities tell us, there could be no fair adjudication if the Stewards took into account in coming to their decision any fact that had not been brought to the attention of Mr. Miens. But nothing was said by the Stewards during the hearing or in their reasons to suggest that this happened. They were clearly not relying on the personal observation on the part of any of their number of any of the races in which Mr. Miers rode. It would have been otiose to state the self-evident fact that the Stewards were considering the material before them as Stewards, with their knowledge of racing as part of their equipment, and not as laymen. I regard it as essential to bear in mind a factor which seems to me to be quite plain, that the freedom of a tribunal to reach a decision on the facts presented to it is considerably greater when the decision is more the formulation of an opinion within its discretion than a question of fact. The Stewards were not deciding whether or not Mr. Miers was wholly or partially to blame for any particular slow start (as would be the case in disciplinary proceedings) but whether in their opinion Mr. Miers was still up to the standards required of an expatriate jockey. There was no reason whatever why they should have substituted Lord Oaksey's opinion for their own - nor were they bound to explain why, despite his evidence, they thought as they did. It would have been quite different if it could be said (and I am firmly of the view that it cannot) that no responsible body of Stewards in the context of the Hong Kong racing scene, if I may so call it, could reasonably have concluded on the evidence available that Mr. Miers should not be re-licensed. What was essentially the Stewards opinion, if honestly and reasonably held, is, in my judgment, unassailable in a court of law. 55. In my opinion the Stewards gave Mr. Miers a full and fair hearing in every sense of those words. Their good faith is not challenged. It cannot be said that they asked themselves, and answered, the wrong question. There is nothing to indicate that they failed to take any relevant consideration into account (they could not, even without the oral evidence, have been unaware of the obvious fact that slow starts are often the fault of the horse and not the rider). Their decision was not manifestly unreasonable. 56. In conclusion I would reiterate, in different words, that neither the High Court nor this Court is entitled to assume appellate jurisdiction - the jurisdiction we have is entirely supervisory. If as here, there was in the facts sufficient material to support the conclusion of the Stewards, we may not overrule it merely because we might, on the same facts have reached a different one. Nor can the decision of the Stewards be impugned, if there has been no breach of the rules of natural justice, upon notions that it may operate harshly against a particular individual. This is not a matter for us.
Power, J. : 57. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of the Learned President and am in respectful agreement therewith. I would only add that much of the difficulty that has arisen in this matter came about because the Licensing Committee did not, as in my view it should have, proceed to a hearing of the appellant's application for a renewal of his licence. While I make no criticism of their motive for holding a "preliminary meeting", it should, in my view, never have been held. I consider that it may be proper to indicate that, in my view, the approach adopted prior to that meeting, that is calling upon the appellant to give reasons why, in the light of his record, his licence should be renewed, would have been a proper and appropriate one to have adopted preliminary to a hearing by the Licensing Committee of the application to renew his licence.
Representation: Denis Henry Q.C., C. Rodway & Graeme Mackay (M/S Hampton, Winter & Glynn) for Appellant. Charles Ching, Q.C. & John Bleach (M/S J.S.M.) for Respondent. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||