| JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL ACT : ROAD TRAFFIC (AUTHORISATION TO DRIVE) REGULATIONS 2008 CITATION : SALPIETRO and DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT [2013] WASAT 141 MEMBER : MS NATASHA OWEN-CONWAY (MEMBER) HEARD : 27 MAY 2013 DELIVERED : 27 MAY 2013 PUBLISHED : 30 AUGUST 2013 FILE NO/S : CC 1075 of 2012 BETWEEN : SALVATORE ANTONINO SALPIETRO Applicant
AND
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Respondent
Catchwords: Refusal to grant a driver's licence Physical condition impairing ability to control a vehicle Turns on own facts Legislation: Evidence Act 1966 (WA)
(Page 2)
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 97(1)(c)
Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Regulations 2008 (WA), reg 25, reg 25(b), reg 42
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 42, s 48A, Pt IVA
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 9, s 17, s 24, s 27(1), s 27(2), s 27(3), s 29(1), s 29(3), s 32, s 35(1) Result: Decision affirmed
Summary of Tribunal's decision: The applicant suffered a severe injury to his brain as a child. The applicant had held a driver's licence and had at one stage been authorised to drive a truck. That driver's licence was not renewed and the applicant did not hold a driver's licence for some time prior to his recent application. The applicant's application for authority to drive a C class and an MC class vehicle was refused by the respondent. The applicant applied for a review of that decision. The applicant's administrators filed documents and material to establish that the applicant had sustained a severe brain injury and continued to suffer consequent cognitive impairment. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant's injury and consequent cognitive impairment constituted a physical condition and that the condition impaired his ability to control a motor vehicle. The applicant had failed at least two driving tests to drive a motor vehicle and the assessment of his ability to drive disclosed that his condition was the cause of his impaired ability to control a motor vehicle. The Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision.
Category: B
Representation: Counsel:
Applicant : Self-represented
Respondent : Mr P Busby (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors: (Page 3)
Respondent : Department of Transport
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 4)
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
The application 1 On 4 July 2012 the applicant made an application for review of the respondent's decision (made on 21 May 2011) to refuse to grant the applicant a driver's licence. The respondent's refusal was the subject of an internal review undertaken by the respondent at the applicant's request. On 26 June 2012 the respondent affirmed the earlier refusal. The latter decision is the reviewable decision. The Tribunal application form provides under the heading 'Decision Sought': I WISH TO HAVE THE M.C. CLASS LICENCE. 2 Under the heading 'Grounds' the application provides: I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN THE WORKFORCE. DR. D. HOFFMAN HAS [a] LETTER THAT I AM FIT TO HAVE OR TACKE [sic] THE WORK FORCE. 3 The respondent refused the applicant's application for a driver's licence of any description upon the basis that the applicant suffers a medical condition that is likely to impair his ability to control a motor vehicle. 4 The final hearing took place on 27 May 2013 at which time the Tribunal made a final order and affirmed the respondent's refusal to grant the applicant a driver's licence upon the basis that written reasons would be provided at a later point in time. These are those written reasons.
The directions proceedings 5 On 19 July 2012 the applicant appeared at the directions hearing and explained to the Tribunal that he: a) was desirous of finding work as a truck driver; b) had previously held a driver's licence authorising him to drive a truck but his administrators had failed to pay the licence renewal fee at some time and the licence had lapsed; c) had suffered damage to his head and his brain as a child as a consequence of a road traffic accident but was unable to identify what the injury was or what the permanent disability was, if any; and (Page 5)
d) had been treated by Professor Stokes as a child. The applicant reasoned that, as he had once held a driver's licence authorising him to drive a truck, he ought now to be granted one again. 6 The respondent informed the Tribunal that it did not consider the applicant medically fit to control a motor vehicle. Neither party could inform the Tribunal precisely of the injury sustained by him and the nature of the ongoing disability, if any, that he suffered as a consequence of the motor vehicle accident injury suffered by the applicant when he was a child. 7 On 6 July 2012, and before the initial directions hearing, the applicant filed a single sheet of paper with the following statements upon it: 8 Although in his application the applicant expressly referred to a letter by Dr Hoffman, he produced no such letter by the date of the directions hearing on 19 July 2012. 9 The applicant explained that he had administrators appointed but no guardian had been appointed. As the applicant asserted that his doctor, Dr Hoffman, had material that supported the applicant's application, but the applicant did not seem to comprehend how he might obtain that material so as to file the same in the Tribunal and serve it upon the respondent, the Tribunal made an order pursuant to s 35(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) directed to Dr Hoffman for production of relevant medical material concerning the applicant's ability to drive. (Page 6)
10 On 22 August 2012 the Tribunal made orders in terms of the Tribunal's standard orders 7, 9 and 10, having received some documentation from Dr Hoffman as referred to below. 11 On 15 October 2012 the Tribunal received the respondent's statement of issues, facts and contentions. The Tribunal also received from the respondent documents filed purportedly in accordance with the Tribunal's order to produce documents pursuant to s 24 of the SAT Act (SAT standard order 7(b)). 12 On 9 October 2012 the applicant filed a handwritten note requesting an extension of time within which to comply with the orders made on 22 August 2012. At the directions hearing on 15 October 2012 the applicant appeared with Mr P Clissa, his clinician. Mr Clissa had written to the Tribunal on 27 September 2012. In that letter and at the directions hearing Mr Clissa expressed his view that the applicant had become very anxious with his application to the Tribunal for review and the need for him to comply with the Tribunal's orders made on 22 August 2012. Mr Clissa indicated that the applicant had become over-focussed on being granted a driver's licence. Mr Clissa expressed his view that the applicant was not capable of advancing the application alone, and his anxiety over the issue of the grant of a driver's licence and the procedures the Tribunal had required the applicant to comply with was interfering with his health and his ongoing treatment. Even at this stage there was no evidence before the Tribunal precisely what the injury was that the applicant had sustained and what was the applicant's condition. 13 On Mr Clissa's application an order was made providing that the applicant be referred to the Public Advocate pursuant to s 97(1)(c) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) to investigate whether the applicant may be in need of a guardian. The Tribunal's concern at that time was that the applicant required a guardian to advance this application. 14 At the directions hearing held on 6 March 2013 the Tribunal was informed by the Public Advocate's representative that the Public Advocate was of the view that the applicant was not in need of a guardian. This information was confirmed to the Tribunal by letter dated 14 March 2013 from the Public Advocate. The Tribunal extended the time within which the applicant was to comply with the orders made on 22 August 2012 and the applicant was listed for a hearing on 27 May 2013. On 6 May 2013 the application was called on for a directions hearing for the Tribunal to assess whether the parties did indeed intend to proceed on 27 May 2013. (Page 7)
On that day the proceeding was adjourned to a final hearing on 27 May 2013 without further orders for directions. The applicant's administrator attended at the directions hearing on 6 March 2013 and 6 May 2013.
The documents 15 The Tribunal received the following relevant documents from Dr Hoffman: There was no other correspondence from Dr Hoffman. The complete record provided by Dr Hoffman did not contain any reference to any opinion held by Dr Hoffman or any detailed medical assessment of the applicant relevant to assessing the applicant's ability to drive a motor vehicle. 16 The applicant filed a number of irrelevant documents on 26 and 27 July 2012. On 11 September 2012 the respondent filed its statement of issues, facts, contentions, and documents including: • its letter to the applicant dated 21 May 2011 refusing to grant a licence; • its letter to the applicant dated 26 June 2012 refusing to grant a licence following a review of the earlier decision; • a copy of Dr Jackson's report provided to Dr Hoffman dated 21 March 2012; • a copy of a report from Eyes on Oxford dated 16 February 2012; • a copy of a screen printout of the respondent's details pertaining to the applicant; and • a copy of a handwritten letter from the applicant asserting 'THERE IS NOT A THING WRONG WITH MY FITTNESS [sic] TO DRIVE'. (Page 8)
17 On 1 November 2012 the respondent filed in the Tribunal: • Driving Assessment record dated 4 May 2010; • Driving Assessment record dated 21 November 2008; • Fitness to Hold Report dated 4 May 2010; and • Independent Living Centre WA driving assessment report dated 21 January 2010. 18 On 21 May 2013 one of the applicant's administrators provided the Tribunal with additional documents including: • Fitness to Hold Report dated 4 May 2010; • Driving Assessment record dated 4 May 2010; • Driving Assessment record dated 21 November 2008; and • an email from Dr Warwick Black, consultant psychiatrist, dated 4 April 2006, with attached CT scan images. 19 Also on 21 May 2013 the respondent filed a supplementary report by Dr Jackson. 20 On 22 May 2013 the applicant filed a report from Specsavers supporting his application to drive a multiple combination vehicle without visual aids.
Statutory framework 21 The purpose of the Road Trafffic Act 1974 (WA) (RT Act) identified in the long title is: ... to consolidate and amend the law relating to road traffic; to repeal the Traffic Act 1919 and for incidental and other purposes. 22 Part IVA of the RT Act is concerned with 'Authorisation to drive'. Section 42 of the RT Act relevantly provides: (1) The regulations are, together with this Part, to provide for a driver licensing scheme under which - (a) the Director General - (i) grants people licences to drive motor vehicles on roads; … (Page 9)
23 Regulation 25 of the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Regulations 2008 (WA) (Regulations) provides that the respondent: The Tribunal's review jurisdiction 24 Section 48A the RT Act provides that regulations may be made concerning any review of the respondent's decisions made under Pt IVA of the RT Act. Regulation 42 of the Regulations provides relevantly: 25 The RT Act and the Regulations made pursuant to s 42 of the RT Act together comprise an enabling Act (s 3 of the SAT Act) for the purposes of s 17 of the SAT Act. When read together, they confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to review the respondent's reconsidered decision to refuse the applicant's application for a driver's licence. In the exercise of its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal is not limited in its considerations to the material that was before the original decision-maker (s 27(1) of the SAT Act) nor to a consideration of the original decision-maker's reasoning alone (s 27(3) of the SAT Act). The review is by way of a hearing de novo (s 27(1) of the SAT Act) and the Tribunal's statutory objective is to make the correct and preferable decision (s 27(2) of the SAT Act). Section 29(1) of the SAT Act provides that all of the functions and (Page 10)
discretions conferred on the original decision-maker are conferred on the Tribunal in addition to the powers conferred upon the Tribunal by the SAT Act. Section 29(3) of the SAT Act confers specific powers upon the Tribunal in the disposition of the review application. 26 Generally, and whether exercising its original or review jurisdiction, the Tribunal is not bound to apply the Evidence Act 1966 (WA), the rules of evidence or the practices and procedures of any courts of record (s 32(2)(a) of the SAT Act), but it is bound by the rules of natural justice (s 32(1) of the SAT Act) and 'is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities' (s 32(2)(b) of the SAT Act). Further, the Tribunal is bound to 'ensure' that all relevant material is disclosed to the Tribunal 'so as to determine all of the relevant facts in issue in a proceeding' (s 32(7)(a) of the SAT Act). In conducting proceedings, the Tribunal is to review decisions '... fairly and accordingly to the substantial merits [of the case]' (s 9(a) of the SAT Act). The Tribunal has the implicit power to make enquiries of the parties and witnesses so as to discharge the obligations referred to in s 9 and s 32 of the SAT Act.
The issue 27 The question for the Tribunal is whether the applicant suffers from a mental or physical condition that is likely to impair the applicant's ability to control a motor vehicle in terms of reg 25(b) of the Regulations. The Tribunal has concluded that the applicant does suffer a physical condition that impairs his ability to control a motor vehicle.
The respondent's position and its documents 28 Although the applicant was and remained focused on the grant of a driver's licence authorising him to drive a MC class vehicle, he did not actually have a driver's licence at all. In short, the respondent's position was that the applicant could not be granted a driver's licence authorising him to drive an MC class vehicle when he did not have authorisation to drive a C class vehicle. The respondent refused to grant the applicant authorisation to drive a C class vehicle because of his physical or mental condition which impaired his ability to control a vehicle. In its statement of issues, facts and contentions filed on 11 September 2012 the respondent states: 1) The applicant is 52 years old and was first issued a C class driver's licence (standard motor car) in 1981 and (Page 11)
an H class licence in 2001, having passed a practical driving assessment (paragraph 1). 2) The applicant suffered a severe brain injury when he was 11 years old (paragraph 2). 3) The medical reports indicate that the injury 'had cognitive and personality consequences' for the applicant (paragraph 2). 4) In 2008 an order was made by this Tribunal appointing administrators to the applicant's estate (paragraph 2). 5) The applicant's fitness to hold a licence was raised in 2008 when he twice failed a practical driving assessment for his C class licence (paragraph 3). 6) The applicant was assessed for fitness to hold a driver's licence by his general practitioner, Dr Hoffman, who referred the applicant for specialist assessment (paragraph 5). 7) The applicant was assessed by Mr Stephen Leslie, optometrist (paragraph 6). 8) The applicant was assessed by Dr Andrew Jackson, psychiatrist (paragraph 7). 9) On reviewing the optometrist's and the psychiatric reports, the Department of Transport's occupational health physicians, Dr Campbell and Dr Lucas, reported that they were of the opinion that the applicant did not 'meet the conditional commercial or private standards to hold a driver's licence'. 29 At no stage did the respondent identify the applicant's cognitive and personality consequences or any mental or physical condition for the purposes of reg 25(b) of the Regulations. Further the Department of Transport's occupational health physicians did not identify the injury or the condition suffered by the applicant (other than 'Head injury') which is called for by reg 25(b) of the Regulations. Instead, the respondent provided in paragraph 4 of its statement of issues, facts and contentions as follows: (Page 12)
The 'fitness to hold' file held by the Department runs to some 90 pages and covers the period 2004 to 2010. Whilst the file contains an extensive background history it does not in itself form the basis of the decision under review. Further, the file contains other information and correspondence on the Guardianship issues which overlap and are difficult to separate. Given the sensitivity of those issues and the lack of relevance to the current decision I have not included the file in the bundle of documents I've supplied which forms part of the Order made on 22/8/2012. It is however available if required by the Tribunal. (Tribunal emphasis) 30 By order made on 2 August 2012 the respondent was required to file 'documents and other material in its possession or under its control which are relevant to the Tribunal's review of the decision' pursuant to s 24 of the SAT Act. The respondent did not file documents which it did not rely upon in making the reviewable decision, or other documents and material, because of an unidentified notion of 'sensitivity'. The respondent was obliged, by the order made on 22 August 2012 and the provisions of s 24 of the SAT Act, to file documents relevant to the Tribunal's review of the decision. It is not sufficient compliance with the Tribunal's order made on 22 August 2012, that the respondent offered the Tribunal the opportunity to inspect the remaining 90 page bundle of undisclosed documents. The respondent did not comply with the Tribunal's order and s 24 of the SAT Act. 31 Turning to Dr Jackson's report dated 21 March 2012, which was relied on by the respondent at all stages, the Tribunal notes that Dr Jackson stated that he received a call from 'his doctor at the head injury unit'. Presumably this is a reference to the applicant's doctor, who is not identified, and the Head Injury Unit of the Department of Health, to provide background history for the applicant. However, Dr Jackson does not make this clear in his first report, nor in his subsequent report dated 16 May 2013. Dr Jackson says that following a discussion with the unidentified doctor, he believed that the applicant had suffered a severe brain injury at the age of 11, with subsequent 'cognitive and personality consequences' for him. Dr Jackson notes that he is informed by an unidentified source that the applicant had grown up on a farm and was socialised into the idea that his injury was not as severe as it actually was and is. Dr Jackson notes that he has been informed that the applicant remained 'under the Guardianship Board' for many years and had had previous assessments. There is no support for the fact that there was a guardianship order, but it may be that Dr Jackson had mistaken a guardianship order for an order for administration. At this point in his report he does not identify the injury or condition. Further, his report is based entirely upon a statement of an unidentified person from the 'head (Page 13)
injury unit'. The basis of that unidentified person's opinion and statements is not supported by any material provided by the respondent to the Tribunal. 32 Dr Jackson's subsequent report of 16 May 2013 does not rectify the evidential deficiencies of his earlier report. However, as the applicant's administrators did file documentation and material that addressed the issue of the applicant's condition, the Tribunal considers that it has discharged the s 32 SAT Act obligation to ensure all relevant material is disclosed to the Tribunal (see below). 33 Dr Jackson undertook a 'mini mental state examination' of the applicant and concluded: His most prominent difficulties emerged with front frontal lobe testing. When asked to describe the similarities between a child and a dwarf he said that 'a child is a baby who can't move around' and 'a dwarf can move around but is smaller still'. When asked to describe the difference and similarities between an orange and a basketball, he gave a better explanation, [and] stated that 'oranges are soft and juicy on the inside' and 'a basketball bounces'. He stated that both these objects were round. He was unable to give any metaphorical explanations for proverbs such as 'the rolling stone gathers no moss' and 'people in houses shouldn't throw stones'. He gave concrete explanations to these proverbs only. 34 Dr Jackson does not identify whether he undertook any further testing and, if so, what the test and the results were. He concluded: It was clear based on the cognitive difficulties that he displayed in the assessment as well as the collateral history gained [that] it would be inappropriate [for] Salvatori to hold a heavy driver's licence vehicle [sic]. 35 At no stage has Dr Jackson identified the injury to the applicant's brain and the impact of the injury to the applicant's cognitive abilities. Dr Jackson also states that the applicant's ability to process information and to plan is compromised. On their own the reports by Dr Jackson were unhelpful to the Tribunal's determination of whether the applicant suffered a mental or physical condition for the purposes of reg 25(b) of the Regulations although his reports are helpful to the Tribunal's determination of whether the applicant has the ability to control a vehicle.
The applicant's administrator's documents 36 Documents filed by the applicant's administrators include an email report from Dr Warwick Black and CT scan images provided by Dr Black to the applicant's administrators in 2006. It is clear from Dr Black's email (Page 14)
report and the CT scan images that the applicant had suffered a permanent severe injury to his left frontal lobe. Dr Black notes in his email report: There is very little active tissue in the left frontal lobe. 37 Dr Black states that the missing section in the left frontal lobe: … is responsible for a range of functions including regulation of behaviour, information processing, planning, etc etc. 38 The cerebral defect is very clearly shown in the attached colour scan images which show at the left frontal lobe that there is an absence of activity depicted by blue and black colours, whereas in the rest of the brain scan images there are clear indicators of activity ranging from white through to green, yellow and red.The information provided by Dr Black and the CT scan images support the conclusions by Dr Jackson.
The applicant's position 39 The applicant had difficulty advancing his case and collating all the necessary material required by the Tribunal to make the correct and preferable decision. Suffice to say that the applicant's position is that he believes that he suffers no medical or physical impairment to his ability to control a motor vehicle. The applicant gave some evidence before the Tribunal in response to the Tribunal's questions. 40 The applicant did not address the scan images or Dr Black's statements at the hearing. The applicant repeated that he wanted to be able to obtain work driving trucks. It was not clear whether the applicant did not understand the statements of Dr Black or whether he did not accept them. The applicant's failure or refusal to understand that his injury has left him permanently cognitively disabled may be because the applicant had been socialised as a child and young man to believe that his injury was not as significant as in fact it is (as Dr Jackson recorded). The applicant's failure or refusal to respond to the statements of Dr Black and Dr Jackson is consistent with Dr Black's and Dr Jackson's statement that indicates that the applicant's injury affects his ability to process information.
Consideration and conclusion 41 Based upon Dr Black's report, Dr Jackson's conclusion as to the applicant's impaired ability to process information, and the CT scans images, the Tribunal finds as a fact that the applicant suffers a permanent cognitive disability caused by a childhood injury to the applicant's left (Page 15)
frontal lobe. The Tribunal finds that the cognitive disability has left the applicant with substantially diminished ability to process information and plan. 42 This cognitive disability has not been specifically identified in the evidence as being related to learning, but the applicant's reduced cognitive abilities were illustrated to the Tribunal by his failure to pass a driving test in 2008 and 2010 as recorded in the following documents: filed by the applicant's administrators and by the respondent. 43 The Tribunal notes that the 'Fitness to Hold Report' dated 4 May 2010 states: Client has failed 2 PDA's [practical driving assessments] FTH [fitness to hold]. Assessor has spoken to Instructor as client appears to not have the ability to retain instructions. Instructor confirms that client is like this all the time & doesn't seem to be improving at all. Client says he will keep going until he gets licence back, but doesn't seem to be able to understand that driving improvement is required. (Tribunal's emphasis) 44 The driving assessment records taken on 4 May 2010 and 21 November 2008 indicate that the applicant repeated the mistakes of the 2008 test in the 2010 test. 45 The Independent Living Centre WA Driving Assessment Report dated 22 January 2010 states in relation to the 'Cognitive Screen' test that: Mr Salpietro[']s responses were generally lacking in detail and organisation of delivery. Objects were not reported on 6/15 slides presented, generally low light or complex slides. Some difficulty observed with left/right concepts. Overall score indicates Mr Salpietro may have some difficulties with the cognitive demands of driving. 46 In the 'Trail Making Tests' the report states: Mr Salpietro[']s results for visual scan and visual motor integration (A) were on lowest percentile for age. He understood requirements and completed task accurately. On trail B requiring divided attention, Mr Salpietro had greater difficulty understanding task requirements. Task was completed greatly out of timed norms. Although inaccurate, he was able to problem solve to regain path to complete. 47 In the 'Symbol Digit Modalities Test' the report states: (Page 16)
Written task completed with the results in very low category indicating speed of visual motor processing is significantly delayed. Answer were accurate indicating adequate 2D special skills[.] 48 In 'Summary of Clinical Results' the report stated: Results on clinical screen indicate that whilst Mr Salpietro possesses the physical skills required for vehicle handling, his cognitive perceptual skills, including speed of visual motor coordination, reduced divided attention and working memory abilities may impact on safety in the driving environment. 49 The 'Driving Trial' states: A 50 minute driving trial was commenced at Matthews netball centre car park [and] then proceeded on road through a route with graded traffic conditions and vehicle handling requirements. 50 Relevantly, the assessor notes: • The applicant displayed a cautious driving style, and whilst his observation was adequate at controlled intersections and mirror use was observed in straight driving, he did not use any over shoulder checks observed with lane change. • The applicant failed to use indicators generally in lane changing and at roundabouts. His speed was inconsistent throughout. • The applicant repeatedly fluctuated between high and low speed before becoming appropriate towards the middle of the trial. • The applicant's speed to come to a stop was generally abrupt and the vehicle stalled on a hill start. • The applicant's on road position was at times too close to the vehicle on the left and he tended to pull up too close behind stopped vehicles. • The applicant's gap selection for crossing complex intersections was chosen appropriately, despite considerable wait time required for traffic to clear. The assessor also notes that the applicant improved in confidence as the trial progressed. (Page 17)
51 The assessor's recommendation in January 2010 was that the applicant's learner's permit be extended for one month and that he undertake some additional training to correct his errors. Notwithstanding this advice and notwithstanding the applicant's best will and effort, on 4 May 2010 the applicant again failed to pass his driving assessment for the same reasons that he had failed in 2008 and for the same criticisms that had been identified in the report dated 22 January 2010. 52 These errors might be consistent with a novice learner driver but given the applicant had driven as a young man, had driven trucks as a young man, had sat a driving test in 2008 and had been under the tuition of an instructor for a period of time, these errors persuade the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that they are consistent with the applicant's cognitive impairment. The Tribunal considers that test observations are consistent with the scan images and Dr Black's statement that the applicant has very little activity in his left frontal lobe. 53 The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applicant suffered a physical injury to his left frontal lobe as a child and that has caused the applicant to suffer a permanent cognitive disability. Together, the injury and the consequent disability comprise a physical condition for the purposes of reg 25(b) of the Regulations. 54 The Tribunal is also satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant's physical injury to the applicant's left frontal lobe and the consequent permanent cognitive disability has caused the applicant's impaired ability to control a motor vehicle as displayed in 2008, and in January and May 2010. 55 The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that: • the applicant has suffered a physical condition; • the applicant possesses an impaired ability to control a motor vehicle; and • there is a causal connection between the applicant's physical condition and his impaired ability to drive a motor vehicle; such that the applicant's application for a MC driver's licence or any driver's licence was properly refused. 56 For these reasons the Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision made on 21 May 2011 and affirmed by the respondent on 26 June 2012 to (Page 18)
refuse to grant the applicant a motor vehicle licence and an authority to drive a MC class vehicle .
Order 1. The respondent's decision to refuse the grant of a driver's licence to the applicant is affirmed. |