A man who had his driving licence suspended after accumulating 12 points, has argued before the Administrative Review Tribunal that his licence should be returned because it was indispensable for the performance of his duties as a court expert.  

Robert Cardona said in his application before the tribunal that his licence was revoked on July 18, 2018, but he needed his licence because he was a court expert and scientist in the food sector and was on call round the clock. The use of a car was therefore indispensable for the needs of the court and the catering sector.

He asked the tribunal to revoke Transport Malta's decision to suspend his licence and for his licence to be returned under whatever terms that the tribunal saw fit. 

In its reply, Transport Malta said the tribunal was not the forum appointed by law to decide such cases. Furthermore, it had not actually taken any decision since, in terms of the law, notice of revocation of licence was issued automatically once 12 points were accumulated. 

Transport Malta also observed that Mr Cardona in his appeal was not actually contesting anything but was insisting that his driving licence was essential for his work.

In its considerations, the tribunal confirmed that in terms of the law, a driving licence was automatically suspended whenever 12 points were accumulated within 12 months. Therefore, Transport Malta took no decision and had no discretion in the matter.

The tribunal also noted that the traffic contraventions had not been contested before any tribunal or court.

Although decisions by Transport Malta could be appealed, this case was not about any decisions which could be appealed.

The tribunal noted that the appeal was also based on clause 30 (2) of the Criminal Code which said that any person who had a warrant, licence, permit or authority suspended may apply to a court to have his licence restored if the court thought it expedient, having regard to his character, conduct subsequent to the conviction, the nature of the offence and to any other circumstances of the case.

The tribunal, however, said it was also not the right forum to decide a plea under this clause.