Sussex Man wrote:
John Davies wrote:
The woodings case has nothing to do with forming a rank. There are no references in that case about forming a rank for the purpose of hire and reward. How did you draw a conclusion from something that was never said?
Woodings was found guilty on appeal by the prosecution because it was found that he plied for hire without an apropriate licence by way of accepting a hiring that didn't come by way of legal proccess.
In short it means that every hire undertaken must be got by legal means. That applies to anyone both Hackney carriage drivers and private hire drivers.
Yes you are quite right that he was found quilty of plying for hire, but that was when he was in the car.
However when he nipped out for a pee, as in the words of the judge;
In my judgement, when the defendant parked the marked car in the street, for the purpose of going to the toilet, he was not plying for hire, and when he came out of the toilet, he was not plying for hire. But when, having sat in the driver's seat, he told propective passengers that he was free to carry them, at that stage, bearing in mind where the car was and what the car looked like, plying for hire.Yes we know all that, in fact I think I mentioned it in another thread. I know the Woodings case back to front, what I'm mystified about is the connection you make with this case and forming a rank? It was never suggested in the Woodings case that he was forming a rank. In fact, I can't think of many cases connected with plying for hire that do have forming a rank as an ingredient. The woodings offence was plying for hire and the decision was derived at by case stated.
I get the impression you are making an inference between the absence of the drivers from their vehicles at Watford Station and the woodings case. I haven’t sought to comment on the legalities of the drivers at Watford station but I will put this to you?
In the woodings case it was said he parked his vehicle to go to the toilet, which is correct he did. The court founds that Mr woodings had not broken any laws up to that point. Where Mr woodings crossed the line was when he accepted the hire.
The same will apply at Watford station if any of the AA united drivers take a hire which isn't lawful.
But let me tell you! the distinction between the two ends exactly there. Where as woodings did not have his vehicle exhibited for hire, the drivers on the station do. There is no relief in the woodings case for the drivers on the station, simply because their vehicles are placed there with the explicit purpose for taking custom from the station. Albeit legally.
However? If one of those drivers take an illegal hire, then without doubt he will be committing an offence, no matter what.
Best wishes
John Davies
Manchester
Login
Register
FAQ
(j/k)
