Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Dudley Cabbies told to play fare

I know they are not meant to pick up but does this not come under entrapment :?:

In one particular court case the judge expressed the opinion that "it has been recognised that law enforcement agencies have a general duty to the public to enforce the law and it has been regarded as unobjectionable if a law enforcement officer gives a defendant an opportunity to break the law, of which the defendant freely takes advantage, in circumstances where it appears that the defendant would have behaved in the same way if the opportunity had been offered by anyone else.'

I'm still not entirely clear about what amounts to entrapment and what doesn't.

If and LO flags down a PH and it stops and picks him up, what would be required to make it an entrapment scenario?

There is the other scenario where by the driver knew the inspector and if the inspector waved him down and the driver stopped thinking that he wanted to speak to him or check the vehicle what would the outcome be then :?:

Author:	JD [ Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Dudley Cabbies told to play fare
December 7, 2007 Friday Cabbies told to play fare! Halesowen News Borough cabbies have been warned to play fare' as council chiefs stage a Christmas clampdown after a series of undercover taxi probes. Over the weekend of Saturday and Sunday December 1 and 2 a plying for hire' investigation was carried out by Dudley Council taxi chiefs in the Waterfront, Brierley Hill and Kingswinford. This saw ten taxis flagged and only one refused to take the fare because it was not booked. The nine other drivers in this group will now be considered for prosecution after plying for hire and no insurance. If convicted the cabbies could be slapped with fines for plying for hire and driving without insurance and up to eight penalty points. All drivers would then appear before the council's Taxis Committee for a review of their licence which they could be stripped of. In another council probe on the weekends of November 17 and 24 a total of 30 Hackney carriages were hailed and taken on short trips. Twenty nine of these taxis used their meters and charged the correct fare but one Hackney cab didn't and the driver may now face prosecution. Councillor Doreen Ameson, chair of the Taxis Committee, said: "I hope these operations will send out a clear message to all private hire and hackney carriage drivers to be responsible. "We are concerned about the safety of the public who must remember if they get in a private hire vehicle, without booking it first, the vehicle is not insured and they are at risk in the event of an accident." __________________________

Author:	skippy41 [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:03 am ]
Post subject:
I know they are not meant to pick up but does this not come under entrapment

Author:	JD [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:02 am ]
Post subject:
skippy41 wrote: I know they are not meant to pick up but does this not come under entrapment The law on entrapment is quite clear and what we had in these cases was nothing more than an invitation to break the law. These drivers could have said "no" as well as saying "yes" but they chose the latter. Therefore whether or not they took advantage of the opportunity to break the law, the decision was entirley one of their making and as such there was no entrapment. In one particular court case the judge expressed the opinion that "it has been recognised that law enforcement agencies have a general duty to the public to enforce the law and it has been regarded as unobjectionable if a law enforcement officer gives a defendant an opportunity to break the law, of which the defendant freely takes advantage, in circumstances where it appears that the defendant would have behaved in the same way if the opportunity had been offered by anyone else.' Regards JD

Author:	smiffyz [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:53 am ]
Post subject:
Most PH have done it, and we all know the law, there's no excuse is there.

Author:	TDO [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: In one particular court case the judge expressed the opinion that "it has been recognised that law enforcement agencies have a general duty to the public to enforce the law and it has been regarded as unobjectionable if a law enforcement officer gives a defendant an opportunity to break the law, of which the defendant freely takes advantage, in circumstances where it appears that the defendant would have behaved in the same way if the opportunity had been offered by anyone else.' I'm still not entirely clear about what amounts to entrapment and what doesn't. If and LO flags down a PH and it stops and picks him up, what would be required to make it an entrapment scenario?

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

Dudley Cabbies told to play fare http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7476	Page 1 of 1

Author:	grandad [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:
If a PH actually stops for a LO they deserve to loose their badge for gross stupidity.

Author:	JD [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:
TDO wrote: I'm still not entirely clear about what amounts to entrapment and what doesn't. If and LO flags down a PH and it stops and picks him up, what would be required to make it an entrapment scenario? Incitement is the most common ingredient but I've put together the following information which might be of some assistance to you. The English law on entrapment has not been modified by the right to a fair trial under art 6a of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (as set out in Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998). Under English law, entrapment is not a substantive defence to criminal proceedings, but where a defendant can show entrapment the court may stay the proceedings as an abuse of process or exclude evidence pursuant to s 78b of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Of those two remedies, the grant of a stay, rather than the exclusion of evidence at the trial, should, as a matter of principle, normally be regarded as the appropriate response in a case of entrapment. A prosecution founded on entrapment is an abuse of the court's process. Police conduct which brings about state-created crime is unacceptable and improper, and to prosecute in such circumstances is an affront to the public conscience. In deciding whether conduct amounts to state-created crime, the overall consideration is whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the conduct of the police or other law enforcement agency is so seriously improper as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Circumstances of particular relevance are the nature of the offence, the reason for the particular police operation, and the nature and extent of police participation in the crime. The greater the inducement held out by the police and the more forceful or persistent the police overtures, the more readily may a court conclude that the police have overstepped the boundary. ”It will not, however, normally be regarded as objectionable for the police to behave as would an ordinary customer of a trade, whether lawful or unlawful, being carried on by the defendant”. The last paragraph sums up the present legal position. In short where incitement or other such coercions are absent from the actions of those doing the entrapping then behaving as any prospective member of the public might behave is deemed admissible as evidence in a court of law. The main "taxi" case on entrapment in respect of plying for hire is Nottingham v Amin, it is often quoted in similar cases of entrapment. Another important case is the Human rights case of Teixeira de Castro v Portugal and the House of Lords case of Loosely. http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=51789 Regards JD

Author:	skippy41 [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:
There is the other scenario where by the driver knew the inspector and if the inspector waved him down and the driver stopped thinking that he wanted to speak to him or check the vehicle what would the outcome be then

Author:	grandad [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:
The offence would not be stopping when flagged down. The offence would be if the driver stopped when flagged down by the LO and the LO asked to be taken somewhere and the driver agreed to do so and actually did the job. The offence is carrying a fare that has not been pre booked.

Author:	JD [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:
skippy41 wrote: There is the other scenario where by the driver knew the inspector and if the inspector waved him down and the driver stopped thinking that he wanted to speak to him or check the vehicle what would the outcome be then There have been many convictions of plying for hire based solely on intent. Such as a private hire vehicle sat in a prominent location and having the appearance of being available for public for hire and yet without the added ingredient of a "test purchase". If you don't know the persons who flagged you down and you asked me could you be prosecuted for plying for hire then I would say there could well be a prima facie case that your actions belied your intent and under the circumstances charges might be a distinct possibility? However I'm sure you might say it was pure instinct or curiosity that made you stop and you had no intention of breaking any laws appertaining to plying for hire. Regards JD

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