There are lots reports on differing scenarios relating to entrapment but in referrence to a person illegally plying for hire the High court has more or less determined there is no defence.
This is an old reference dating back some years but nevertheless relevant. I have appended the Amin link at the end of this post. Please take note of the references I highlighted but if you don't wan't to read all of this post then proceed to the Amin Entrapment issue highlighted at the end.
.................................................................
Local Authorities and the Human Rights Act
James T H Button
James Button & Co, Solicitors
Public Health Legal Information Unit
14 February 2000
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) comes into force on 2 October 2000, as I am sure you are by now aware. The overall implications for local government are still being assessed, however in relation to local authority licensing and registration there are some specific points of note.
In particular, the HRA 1998, Sch I, Pt I, art 6 (Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights) raises a number of questions. One of which is whether the consideration of an application for a licence or registration is a determination of a person’s civil rights or obligations. It appears that, in the case of new applications, it does not.
However, that situation changes fundamentally once a licence or registration has been granted. The local authority may be considering renewal or action against that licence, such as suspension or revocation. In the case of Tre Traktörer AB v Sweden ((1989) 13 EHRR 309), the European Court of Human Rights determined that a liquor licence is property. Therefore HRA 1998, Sch I, Pt II, art 1 applies and such decisions must be considered determinations of civil rights. Accordingly art 6 must therefore be followed, which requires ‘a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law’. Local authority licensing committees cannot satisfy that requirement as they are not independent and impartial, being involved as they are with enforcement and regulation.
It appears that in all licensing and registration areas where there is a statutory right of appeal, whether to the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court, the requirements of art 6 are satisfied. However, there will obviously be difficulties in those areas where there is no statutory right of appeal, for example street trading consents under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 or street collections under the Police, Factories, etc (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916. At some point a victim may be able to bring proceedings under HRA 1998, s 7 leading to a declaration of incompatibility being made by the court under HRA 1998, s 4. Until that time, the local authority has a defence under HRA 1998, s 6(2) against any allegation that it has acted in a way which is incompatible with a convention right (HRA 1998, s 6(1)) as there is no statutory alternative.
In relation to all the other licensing and registration functions, it will become necessary for the local authority to conduct its hearing at committee in a way which does not conflict with art 6: fairly, impartially, and in accordance with the statutory rules, such as they are, which regulate local authority committee meetings. Those must themselves be interpreted in such a way to give effect to the HRA 1998 (see s 3 of the Act).
Do not be lulled into a false sense of security by thinking that the provisions of the HRA 1998 will not be considered until 2 October 2000. The courts are already considering HRA 1998 arguments in their determinations. For example, in the case of Nottingham City Council v Amin ((1999) Times, 2 December, QBD) the entrapment argument was considered by the High Court in the light of the HRA 1998. Previously there has never been a defence of entrapment in English Law.
In the Nottingham City Council case, officers from the city council had entered a vehicle which was allegedly plying for hire unlawfully within the city, asked the driver to take them to a particular destination and when he agreed to do so, revealed their identity. He was prosecuted for unlawfully plying for hire contrary to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s 45. The stipendiary magistrate at Nottingham dismissed the prosecution as contravening art 6 in that the actions of the enforcement officers amounted to entrapment and accordingly infringed the defendant’s rights under art 6. The High Court dismissed this argument having considered at length not only English cases but also important European decisions (Schenk v Switzerland (1988) 13 EHRR 242, Lüdi v Austria (1992) 15 EHRR 173 and Teixeria de Castro v Portugal (1998) 28 EHRR 101). Apparently, this decision is not going to be appealed. It is therefore a very useful and important judgment.
The net result of this means in relation to unlawful plying for hire, entrapment activities are not unlawful. This principle can, I feel, be extended to other licensing activities where similar arguments can be raised, for example where enforcement officers attend an unlicensed public entertainment to establish whether or not it is indeed ‘public’.
...........................................................................
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4025
............................................................
Login
Register
FAQ
