Taxi Driver Online

The judgment is 15 pages long and can probably be found on baili

R (on the application of SHARYN DONNACHIE) (Claimant) v CARDIFF MAGISTRATES' COURT (Defendant) & CARDIFF CITY COUNCIL (Interested Party) (2009)

[2009] EWHC 489 (Admin)

QBD (Admin) (Leveson LJ, Sweeney J) 16/3/2009

CONSUMER LAW - LOCAL GOVERNMENT - ROAD TRAFFIC

CONSUMER LAW : FALSE DESCRIPTIONS : INFORMATIONS : JURISDICTION : LOCAL GOVERNMENT : ODOMETERS : AREA OFFENCES COMMITTED : PROSECUTIONS FOR PROTECTION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY INHABITANTS : s.1(1)(a) TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1968 : s.222 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

Informations laid by a local authority in respect of a cab firm alleging the application of false odometer readings were valid. The local authority had specifically had in mind the Local Government Act 1972 s.222 and it was in the interests of the inhabitants of the area that the company was prosecuted in respect of alleged offences in other areas.

The claimant company secretary of a cab company (D) applied for judicial review of a decision of the defendant magistrates' court ruling that original informations laid by the interested party local authority were valid. The informations laid before the magistrates' court charged D with offences contrary to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 s.1(1)(a). Each charge alleged that D had applied a false odometer reading to particular cars in areas outside of the Cardiff area when the cars had been sold at auction. Summonses in the same form were issued. A series of hearings took place including a successful application for judicial review by D. The local authority subsequently abandoned four of the summonses and amended the other two by taking out any mention of the location where the offences were alleged to have occurred. At a hearing D alleged that the local authority had no power to lay the original informations alleging offences outside the Cardiff area. The district judge ruled that the informations had not been void at the outset. D contended that the jurisdiction of the magistrates' court depended upon the local authority having the necessary authority to prosecute. D submitted that the informations as laid clearly alleged offences in areas outside Cardiff and, as such, the local authority required authority under the Local Government Act 1972 s.222 to be able to lay the informations.

HELD: (1) The district judge held that the local authority had proceeded on the basis that the offences had been committed in Cardiff and that references to the other areas were a mistake and as such susceptible to amendment. However, the local authority had originally taken the erroneous view in law that the offences under s.1(1)(a) of the 1968 Act were only committed at the point of sale rather than at the point the vehicle had had the odometer altered prior to sale. The inconsistencies meant that the district judge's acceptance of the factual scenario asserted on behalf of the local authority was wrong. (2) In any event, on all the evidence before the district judge, it was clear that when deciding whether or not to lay the informations the local authority had specifically considered and applied s.222 of the 1972 Act. The wording of s.222 was extremely wide and there was no warrant for limiting the words in any way. The local authority may prosecute any legal proceedings, and what was of significance was whether the local authority considered it expedient to do so for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants in the area, R v Richards (Neil David) (1999) Crim LR 598 CA (Crim Div) considered. Given the nature of the business and the closeness of its connection with Cardiff and its inhabitants, it was self-evidently in the interests on the inhabitants of Cardiff for D to be prosecuted in respect of alleged offences in other areas. Accordingly, the informations were valid.

Application refused

For related proceedings see R (on the application of Donnachie) v Cardiff Magistrates' Court (2007) EWHC 1846 (Admin)

Counsel:
For the claimant: Nick Yeo
For the defendant: Daniel V Williams

Solicitors:
For the claimant: Roy Morgan
For the defendant: In-house solicitor
_________________________

Funnily enough only the other night I was talking to another driver and we commented that nothing had been heard.

The said lady I believe is a very very very close friend of a "Mr C.C - no not captain cab!

So I take it that this is an ongoing case.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.