|
THE CROWN COURT
A2002-0014
MANCHESTER CROWN COURT
MINSHULL STREET
MANCHESTER
Thursday, 29th April, 2002
Before:-
HIS HONOUR JUDGE GEAKE (Sitting with Magistrates)
APPEAL OF
STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
-V-
KENNETH JOHN EYLES
MR. WALSH appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
MR. GLEESON, on behalf of MISS KILPATRICK, appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
(Transcribed from the Official Notes by Cater Walsh & Co, Official Court Reporters, Suite 410 Crown Court Bullring, Kidderminster DY102DH)
(Official Court Reporters and Tape Transcribers)
JUDGEMENT
Thursday, 29th April, 2004
JUDGE GEAKE: The appeal raises, if I may say so, quite interesting philosophical and legal issues in which the decision of an elected local authority council, in this case Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, are challenged by the appellant and by statute are reviewable by an unelected Magistrates Court and, thereafter, here by an unelected Crown Court.
So, we have been referred, perfectly properly, by Mr. Walsh, and had due regard to the 1971 case of Sagnata Investments Limited-v-The Norwich Corporation and have paid proper regard to the opinion policy and decisions of the respondent local authority and, clearly, this case emphasises the tensions between individual rights and necessary local Government controls.
This Court believes that the proper starting point from which to approach this problem is the general Human Right as enshrined in Article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention, which is referred to in the documents before us and which I quote from Miss Kilpatrick1s skeleton argument:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", and I summarise, "Except in the public interest as is deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest".
That, plainly, is the starting point in our view from which to approach this appeal. The Court also accepts, and it is agreed by all the local Government Miscellaneous Provisions act 1976, Section 47, empowers a local authority to attach to the grant of Hackney carriage licences and I quote, "Such conditions as the council may consider reasonably necessary".
Subject to sub-Section three, "Any person aggrieved having a right of appeal to a Magistrates' Court".
We believe that, in accordance with general legal principles, the burden of proving the grievance, on a balance of probabilities, lies upon the appellant to show that the local authority's stated conditions are not reasonably necessary.
To that end the Court heard the evidence in the case:
First of all from Mr. Norman Elthorp, who is and has been the manager of the licensing team for the council. He, no doubt, acted throughout, as he saw it, with the best of intentions and told the Court that he was concerned with Trading Standards and with concerns about safety and illegal plying for hire by taxis which undoubtedly does, from time to time, occur although there is no evidence that it has caused any particular problem, from the point of view of the public confidence or safety.
The more recent history of this matter is, perhaps, constructive, and I turn to page 27 of the respondent's bundle which is effectively Mr. Elthorp's statement - Mr. Walsh, I am going to read from this so that it is in the record - starting at paragraph seven of Mr. Elthorp's statement, we go back to the 20th August 2001:
"Members of the sub-committee received a report relating to the introduction of a corporate image for taxis, this followed a best value review of the Trading Standard Service in which it was recommended that Stockport examine the possibility to improve its taxi fleet by requiring a uniform colour and control on advertising. The review included the observations of a critical friend from Nottingham, where they have a taxi fleet of a corporate colour which is regarded as assisting in recognition and, therefore, safety of the travelling public.
The meeting resolved to amend the council's condition for taxis with effect from 1st January 2002 so that taxis could only be dark green, all advertising on the side panels would be prohibited and the council's crest, approximately 50cm by 50cm, would be displayed on the front door of each side of the vehicle; this related to new vehicles, new release vehicles and gave an 'end date' of 31st December 2008 for existing licensees". The report was submitted to the August 2001 meeting and accepted by members, set out the criteria upon which the best value review recommendation was based and then the criteria followed.
Subsequent to this decision being made, it was noticed that it was a very unpopular with the taxi trade and, as such, a request was made by members of the committee to undertake a consultation process with various stakeholders. It is worth noting that there was also a change to the chair of the committee around this time who was eager to hear the views of the taxi trade, he was involved in the meeting with many taxi owners as part of consultation process which demonstrated the lack of popularity with trade but other stakeholders welcomed the apparent improvements.
On 12th February 2002, the new licensing, environment and safety committee - hereinafter, L.E.A.S. - received a report again relating to the image of taxis. The report gave details of trade consultations requested by members of the committee, it revealed that the taxi trade were particularly concerned about a single colour of green for taxis and the financial implications considering that the majority of cabs were a single colour; namely, black. Trade also expressed reservations about the size of the proposed crest on the doors. As a result, it was resolved by the committee that from 1st April 2002, the council's requirement for taxis be amended to state that taxis could only be in the approved colour, black, that each vehicle be required to display council coat of arms, the words 'Stockport Licensed Taxi’ and the licence plate number on the rear door and an additional plate would be fixed to the front of the taxi, which, together with the rear licence plate, being the material and colour approved by the council.
The committee further decided that, with effect from 1st April 2003, the council's conditions for taxis would be amended to prohibit all advertising on taxis and that only vehicles in the approved colour would be granted a licence capable of extending beyond 31st December 2008.
On 13th August 2002 a report was submitted to L.E.A.S. looking to vary taxi fares for 2002/2003, in that the report was an additional(sic) addition to the formula used to calculate the fares, allowing an amount of 500 pounds to compensate owners of taxis for the loss of income due to restriction of advertising on vehicles. In passing we noted that that particular proposal was not implemented according to Mr. Elthorp. However, even despite this change of view by the committee, many in the taxi trade were still unhappy and I, therefore, arranged a further meeting with them and, again, the Chair of the committee to discuss the issues. At this meeting it was noted that to have all taxis black would not make them as distinctive as Stockport taxis as the green taxis would have done, the Chair stated that his preference for distinctive colour, if retained, remains green; this then resulted in further consideration of the issue of colour and also a recognition that signs on the side, incorporating the licence plate number and additional plate on the front, would make them distinct.
Subsequent to this meeting, and having considered the views of the taxi trade, I then submitted a further report to L.E.A.S. on 14th January 2003:
"Pursuant to my report members accepted that the colour restriction be lifted, having taken into consideration the fact that if the requirement for all cabs to be black were retained, there would be no particular distinction for Stockport taxis and as against those from other areas. However, the requirement to display a notice, incorporating the licence plate number, be kept and the committee decided that advertising be restricted to the rear doors only, each vehicle will display a notice on the front door panel consistent of the council crest and the words Stockport Licensed Taxi and the licence plate number, and any additional licence plate will be fitted to the front of the taxi of a material approved by the council".
I have read that section in full because that is, effectively, the history of the matter up to 14th January 2003. The minutes for that meeting do refer to passenger confidence and safety and a reduction in unlawful plying for hire.
It is clear to us, and from the evidence in the case, in any event, that as far as the public is concerned unlawful plying is not of serious significance when hailing a cab wherever that may be and that it would be at least as easy for a member of the public to identify a cab by its advertisement as by a sign or a crest on the side of the cab.
As for policing the proper use of taxis and policing unlawful plying for hire, any enforcement officer would know where to look for and be able to see the number of the cab wherever it was located, not necessarily in the places chosen by the respondent council in this case. Moreover it is recognised that taxi drivers themselves are the best placed and best motivated to notice and police any rogue Hackney cabs unlawfully plying for hire in their licensing area. In any event private hire cabs pose the main problems in the terms of unlawful plying for hire rather than Hackney carriages.
The Court accepted, and it is plainly agreed by Mr. Walsh for the respondents, that the appellant himself and the witnesses called by him such as representatives of the Stockport Area Drivers' Association and Mr. Darlington, whose job it is to sell cab advertising space to customers, are all perfectly decent, respectable individuals who accept the need for licensing regulations but who do not recognise the need for such restrictions on advertising, as is required by Stockport in this particular instance. Obviously, matters of taste and decency will require scrutiny at all times.
The Court heard evidence, and accepted, that there are significant revenues to be had from such advertising but the restrictions thus far imposed significantly curtailed the demands by advertisers thereby naturally reducing the income of owners, such as the appellant in this case, and consequently limiting their ability to upgrade and improve their taxi fleets for the ultimate benefit of the public.
It is, in our view, very significant in this case that virtually all other local licensing authorities sanction the use of full two-door advertising or, indeed, all-over advertising on cabs and there is no evidence of any adverse impact upon the safety or the confidence of the travelling public from that. It is, within our experience locally, that many such cabs do not even have a side notice of any sort on either side of their cabs, only a front and back plate and a taxi sign, of course, on the top but if a side notice is required by Stockport, we believe it could just as effectively be placed on a window, such as is shown in some of the photographs that have been put before us.
So, in our appellate capacity in this case, we have come to the conclusion that the restrictive conditions imposed by the respondents in this case are not reasonably necessary for public confidence, for public safety; they do not, in our view, serve to assist in the curtailment of any illegal plying for hire which might occur and we believe that they are not, and have not, been logically thought through and that further thought and consultation could have been given by the parties to these issues and should therefore be given in the future.
To that end we allow this appeal by Mr. Eyles and will say no more about it.
Those are our views, Mr. Walsh.
I certify that this is a true and accurate verbatim transcript of my Palantype notes in the case of the appeal of STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL-v-KENNETH JOHN EYLES from pages 1 to 8 to the best of my skill and ability.
Signed
(Official Court Reporter)
THE CROWN COURT
A2002-0014
MANCHESTER CROWN COURT
MINSHULL STREET
MANCHESTER
Thursday, 29th April, 2002
Before:-
HIS HONOUR JUDGE GEAKE (Sitting with Magistrates)
APPEAL OF STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
-V-
KENNETH JOHN EYLES
MR. WALSH appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
MR. GLEESON, on behalf of MISS KILPATRICK, appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
(Transcribed from the Official Notes by Cater Walsh & Co., Official Court Reporters, Suite 410 Crown Court Bullring Kidderminster DY102DH)
(Official Court Reporters and Tape Transcribers)--
RULING FOR COSTS
Thursday, 29th April, 2004
JUDGE GEAKE: We are grateful to, Mr. Walsh, for his expose, exposition, of the up-to-date law on the costs in this sort of case and we have had regard to the case of The City of Bradford-v-Booth and the principle to be derived from that decision and we have come to this conclusion: that Mr. Walsh is, obviously, right to point out that the question of whether costs are awarded in a case of this sort depends upon whether the Court believes it is just and reasonable to do so, and that is a very basic concept; in general terms, costs will follow the event but we have had to consider whether or not, in the special circumstances of this case where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision by a regulatory authority, whether the authority were acting honestly, reasonably and properly and on the grounds that reasonably appear to be sound in the exercise of its public duty and the Court has to consider that in the special circumstances of a case of this sort. We have done and we have given it some considerable thought this morning but it seems to us, I have to say, that as a result of our findings in this case, by which we set out, in detail, the history of the matter as it was explored by the parties and as it developed through to 2003 and the ultimate restrictions that were placed on advertising, and our finding that there was no logic or rational to that particular set of conditions, we believe that, in this particular case, it has to be said that those conditions were not reasonable, whatever the local authority's position was, and we have come to the conclusion that costs, as in the normal way, ought to follow the event; they will, therefore, have to be taxed or agreed by the parties.
I certify that this is a true and accurate verbatim transcript of my Palantype notes in the case of STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL-v-KENNETH JOHN EYLES from pages 1 to 2 to the best of my skill and ability.
Signed.
(Official Court
|
Login
Register
FAQ
