Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Berwick judicial review a substantive analysis.
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10063		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  JD [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Berwick judicial review a substantive analysis.
This is a substantive objective analysis of the Newcastle v Berwick judicial review. I reccommend its download.

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/files/berwickbc.pdf

The version below has a grey background if you prefer a little colour?

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/files/berwickcol.pdf

Regards

JD
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Just skimmed through it....National Taxi Federation....thats not quite right, it was the National Federation of Taxicab Associations.

regards

CC
Author:  JD [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
Just skimmed through it....National Taxi Federation....thats not quite right, it was the National Federation of Taxicab Associations.

regards

CC


Yes I am quite aware of that and I had a feeling you would mention it but use of space caused me to shorten the name.

It doesn't detract from the point being made.

Regards

JD
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:
captain cab wrote:
Just skimmed through it....National Taxi Federation....thats not quite right, it was the National Federation of Taxicab Associations.

regards

CC


Yes I am quite aware of that and I had a feeling you would mention it but use of space caused me to shorten the name.

It doesn't detract from the point being made.

Regards

JD


I understand.

regards

CC
Author:  JD [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
I understand.

regards

CC



I found a (be) where there should have been a (b) so while I was at it I amended the point you raised, however I don't like three hyphens running consecutively.

Regards

JD
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
A well written piece.

I only have one issue (well two issues) with it, and I think you'd have been disappointed if I didnt.

regards

CC
Author:  JD [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
A well written piece.

I only have one issue (well two issues) with it, and I think you'd have been disappointed if I didnt.

regards

CC


What are they might I ask?

Regards

JD
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:

What are they might I ask?

Regards

JD


Without wishing to get into an argument, the Judge didn't mention postcodes, I think he basically stated that a council may take account of where the vehicle maybe worked.

Regards

CC
Author:  JD [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
JD wrote:

What are they might I ask?

Regards

JD


Without wishing to get into an argument, the Judge didn't mention postcodes, I think he basically stated that a council may take account of where the vehicle maybe worked.

Regards

CC


I know he never mentioned post codes what he did mention was "In determining whether to grant a licence under the said section 37 a licensing authority may require an applicant to submit information pursuant to section 57 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in order to ascertain the intended usage of the vehicle."

Postcodes were my invention when he suggested the above.

Information in order to ascertain the intended use of the the vehicle includes making a decision on the information given by way of postal address.

I suspect someone applying from Devon might receive a different response than someone applying from Berwick, regardless of whether the person from Devon states it is his intention to use the vehicle as the law prescribes.

Hence the judges veiled inference that applicants from afar should not be given licenses.

Regards

JD
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:

I know he never mentioned post codes what he did mention was "In determining whether to grant a licence under the said section 37 a licensing authority may require an applicant to submit information pursuant to section 57 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in order to ascertain the intended usage of the vehicle."

Postcodes were my invention when he suggested the above.

Information in order to ascertain the intended use of the the vehicle includes making a decision on the information given by way of postal address.

I suspect someone applying from Devon might receive a different response than someone applying from Berwick, regardless of whether the person from Devon states it is his intention to use the vehicle as the law prescribes.

Hence the judges veiled inference that applicants from afar should not be given licenses.

Regards

JD


I know its a personal view, and I know its been well thought out before publishing, and I don't mean to detract from it. But the inference you state wasn't stated by the judge.

In conclusion in my judgment Berwick has a discretion under section 37 of the 1847 Act to refuse to issue licences to those who have no intention of exercising their right to ply for hire in Berwick and/or to those who intend to use the vehicle predominantly in an area remote from Berwick.

regards

CC
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
As mentioned elsewhere the judge has produced a fudge, and a not very sweet one at that.

If his aim was to let both councils off the hook, then he succeeded with relish.

Berwick can now say we didn't act illegally, but now we know we could do different if we wish too. Providing off course we can get the new rules around the DfT.

And of course as Berwick will be no-more soon, all of this is going to evaporate into the ether. :?

Newcastle can, and it appears are, jumping up and down with glee, cos they won. What they exactly one who knows, but they won, so there.

Are there fewer Berwick taxis working Newcastle tonight? Nope. Will there be fewer working this weekend, this Xmas? Nope.

If anything things are going to get easier, when the big council is made next year, as the area will be even nearer to Newcastle. Or maybe the local firms will just do a Delta and work Newcastle whilst having their call center just outside.

And in that case they wont need to be hackneys, they will all just be PH. :-$

In short it isn't Berwick that got it wrong, nor Newcastle, even though they lack any real enforcement balls, but various govs that just can't be arsed to update taxi/PH legislation.

Even if they did find months/years to stop mangy old foxes getting killed.
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
I agree Sussex and I agree with JD, what we're left the worse of both worlds.

CC
Author:  JD [ Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:04 am ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
I know its a personal view, and I know its been well thought out before publishing, and I don't mean to detract from it. But the inference you state wasn't stated by the judge.

In conclusion in my judgment Berwick has a discretion under section 37 of the 1847 Act to refuse to issue licences to those who have no intention of exercising their right to ply for hire in Berwick and/or to those who intend to use the vehicle predominantly in an area remote from Berwick.

regards

CC


It is perfectly obvious where Symonds was coming from because he based his reasoning on two planks. He made the admission in this initial statement when he said.

"It seems to me that the issue before the Court is whether or not Berwick are right in their submission that they have no discretion, save as to fitness, but instead are obliged to keep granting licences for hackney carriages regardless of the "intentions" of,

"intentions" is the first plank on which he relies. He then went on to say,

and "geographic location" of, the proprietors of those vehicles.

"geographical location is the second plank on which he relies and neatly sums up his reasoning on the postal code issue.

"intentions" and "geographic location". I think it is quite evident what he meant. even if he didn't mention postal codes.

It is also quite evident that he didn't have the legal power to tell Berwick to stop issuing licenses. Therefore how the hell does he expect the court of appeal to back up his judgement on the basis of an activity that is perfectly legal? What do you think will happen if Gateshead refuse a license to a fit and proper proprietor who says he's going to install a radio from a Newcastle private hire firm?

Do you think a court of law will deem him not to be fit and proper? Distance has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of the matter because whether it is one mile or one hundred miles the law doesn't discriminate. On the other hand, Symonds is advocating discrimination based on postal code and the legal intent of vehicle use.

Time will tell whether refusal on postal code licensing is legal but if it is then there could well be a ready made solution for controlling numbers. Perhaps such a discretion could even extend to one owner one vehicle and every owner had to live within the area that supplied the license?

I can't wait for the first refusal to go before the courts but we shouldn't really be in that situation where we have to continually reach out to the courts for the interpreation of legislation. Quite frankly it is pizzzing me off.

Regards

JD
Author:  MR T [ Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:
captain cab wrote:
I know its a personal view, and I know its been well thought out before publishing, and I don't mean to detract from it. But the inference you state wasn't stated by the judge.

In conclusion in my judgment Berwick has a discretion under section 37 of the 1847 Act to refuse to issue licences to those who have no intention of exercising their right to ply for hire in Berwick and/or to those who intend to use the vehicle predominantly in an area remote from Berwick.

regards

CC


It is perfectly obvious where Symonds was coming from because he based his reasoning on two planks. He made the admission in this initial statement when he said.

"It seems to me that the issue before the Court is whether or not Berwick are right in their submission that they have no discretion, save as to fitness, but instead are obliged to keep granting licences for hackney carriages regardless of the "intentions" of,

"intentions" is the first plank on which he relies. He then went on to say,

and "geographic location" of, the proprietors of those vehicles.

"geographical location is the second plank on which he relies and neatly sums up his reasoning on the postal code issue.

"intentions" and "geographic location". I think it is quite evident what he meant. even if he didn't mention postal codes.

It is also quite evident that he didn't have the legal power to tell Berwick to stop issuing licenses. Therefore how the hell does he expect the court of appeal to back up his judgement on the basis of an activity that is perfectly legal? What do you think will happen if Gateshead refuse a license to a fit and proper proprietor who says he's going to install a radio from a Newcastle private hire firm?

Do you think a court of law will deem him not to be fit and proper? Distance has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of the matter because whether it is one mile or one hundred miles the law doesn't discriminate. On the other hand, Symonds is advocating discrimination based on postal code and the legal intent of vehicle use.

Time will tell whether refusal on postal code licensing is legal but if it is then there could well be a ready made solution for controlling numbers. Perhaps such a discretion could even extend to one owner one vehicle and every owner had to live within the area that supplied the license?

I can't wait for the first refusal to go before the courts but we shouldn't really be in that situation where we have to continually reach out to the courts for the interpreation of legislation. Quite frankly it is pizzzing me off.

Regards

JD
JD... apart from suggesting a new Taxi Act... which we all know will not happen in the foreseeable future...... what do you suggest??.
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Suffice to state I dont agree, but I do think its a well written piece.

I see no reference to the inferment the article suggests, i.e. that an application will be refused due to a postcode.

CC
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/