Taxi Driver Online

But no House of Lords Appeal took place either, or a further Appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Your point is?

_________________
IDFIMH

It's views like that that has cost our trade millions over the years.

_________________
IDFIMH

Who knows about that, but there comes a time when people need to take a reality check on their viewpoint.

The top Competitions QC says plate premiums are not a possession as defined by the HRA, and an Appeal's court judge concurred.

FFS if they are wrong then let's see a proper reason why, not just because it hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court.

That could apply to about 99% of all judgements.

_________________
IDFIMH

So I forgot eight years later that it was a decision on allowing an appeal rather than a substantive appeal per se, and to that extent you're implying that I'm being dishonest?

Anyway, the difference you highlight verges on nitpicking; I don't really see how the fact that it wasn't an appeal per se helps your case - the Court of Appeal judge obviously considered that there was no prima facie case to be made. In effect he was saying that a full appeal would be a waste of the court's time. And, of course, the appellant's money.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I'm rolling your eyes because you clearly didn't look for the reference to Royden in the document, which could be found in seconds using the search function.



So you're saying 'no appeal ever took place' but then you say the Bellamy ruling was 'approved'? I don't think the difference you allude to is really of significance in the context of a discussion on an internet message board.

And are you also saying that the human rights document is referring to something other than the judgement I pasted earlier? Thus the human rights document is referring to another judgement on the Wirral scenario?

If so then you must give a citation, to repeat the rules you seem to have decided to impose on the forum.

However, the human rights document says:

"In this regard, the Court of Appeal.......also endorsed the judgment of Sir Christopher Bellamy QC in R (Royden) v Wirral MBC [2003] LGR 290, concerning the issuance of new licences for taxi drivers."

I think that's just summarising the appeal case shown in full further up the thread, it's not drawing a distinction between the "issuance of new licences for taxi drivers" and the human rights/premium aspect.

It says the Court of Appeal 'endorsed' Sir Christopher's judgement. That's all that really needs to be said, rather than getting bogged down on the difference between granting permission to appeal and an appeal per se.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Yes I did look, I don't dispute Royden was referred to, just that the reference didn't have the approval of the human rights aspect that you claim.



No appeal took place, correct. I never said the Bellamy ruling was approved, you did.

No, I'm not saying that.
Yes endorsed as far as issuing licences for taxi drivers was concerned, NOT about the human rights aspects at all.

There never was an appeal.

You can't say just because Sir C's name was mentioned, the court endorsed everything he said.

Of course you can say that, because that's where we all are.

Sir C is the court, was the court, remains the court.

If one takes your analogy then every murderer not granted an appeal is in fact still innocent.

_________________
IDFIMH

I referred to the 'appeal case'. If you want to constantly split hairs then that's not the same as referring to a substantive appeal per se.

As for the rest of your post, the essential proplem seems to be that you don't think the judgement issued by the Court of Appeal (and by that I don't mean an appeal per se either!) dealt with the human rights aspect, but I can't see how you conclude that.

The Court of Appeal's judgement posted here basically summarised and endorsed Sir Christopher Bellamy's judgement, which dealt with the human rights aspect, right?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

The Appeal judge sort of cheated by hearing an appeal without a proper hearing in front of a panel of Judges, and in the process blocking off any further appeal.

He didn't cheat anything or anyone, he saved the drivers of the Wirral tens of thousands of pounds by not allowing an appeal.

That wasn't the reason he didn't grant leave, that reason was because the case was flawed and doomed, but as a by-product he saved those drivers a small fortune.

_________________
IDFIMH

So how many times have you made the point that it wasn't an appeal as such, but now you're saying it is??

And I'd be careful of saying that an appeal court judge "sort of cheated" when following established procedure, because say that in the wrong place and you could end up in contempt of court and even in jail

Anyway, we're clearly at cross purposes here and unlikely to agree on the substance of the case, but it's not myself and those on this thread disagreeing with you that you have to persaude now, it's others.

But I wish you well with your endeavours and look forward to hearing how you get on. Either way it would certainly make for an interesting case and discussion topic on here and for the trade generally.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

If we broaden this debate to court proceedings in general, rather than taxi-related, there have been quite a few appeals that "failed" (sometimes several times!!)...or permission to appeal was not originally granted, but that eventually saw a decision overturned.

Whilst admittedly a different set of circumstances (making this point somewhat redundant!), you'd only have to have watched "See You In Court" on BBC to know this to be the case (the Simon Singh libel case in particular).

However, returning to taxi rulings, TDO, Sussex et al are totally accurate in that, in the absence of a very rich, brave or mad man (or woman!), who is willing to take on an absolutely huge gamble by placing tens of thousands of £££'s on black, rather than red...we have only current court/judges decisions such as the Royden case to go on...which did produce what seemed to be a fairly conclusive result.

As TDO (above post) indicated, we'd all like to observe and debate any new case/appeal (even from our opposing standpoints) but the problem is that none of us would dare to place our cash "on the line" in order to see it happen.

At least MarkR is offering some alternative debate to the usual references to the HRA that we hear on the forum. Plus, the topic managed to draw TDO out into the open, so I hope the thread has a little more mileage at least.

And that's it in a nutshell.

Debate and speculate all you like - 'til the cows come home, with equal relevance, but only the judges will decide if it ever gets to the Court of Human Rights.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

You will only endup in a court of law when commonsense fails.... silly me... imagine referring to common sense on a taxi Forum..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Nah, the 'Dusty can't understand English' was still the best one!