Old chestnuts!

captain cab · **Posted:** Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:55 pm

I think the Judge must have been shown a copy of the Birmingham Airport case.

CC

Sussex · **Posted:** Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:56 pm

Doc G wrote:

I do not have a pot to p#ss in unfortunately eusasmiles.zip

Then you must withdraw gracefully, and say you tried your best and it just didn't work out.

Don't beat yourself up.

captain cab · **Posted:** Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:09 pm

Now the area isnt according to the judge a street......I wonder what would happen if you drove in there and collided with a licensed vehicle standing for hire?

CC

Doc G · **Posted:** Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:26 am

I remain very concerned about the implications.

Not only could rapists, murderers etc. ply for hire on private land, there is no control over the type and condition of vehicles, no easy means of their identification, no way of tracking them down, no control over fares charged etc - all of which, at the very least, go against the sprit and intentions of both Hackney and PH Law – which were obviously enacted to safeguard the public.

Even a “Hire & Reward” insurance requirement would be impossible to police – the council, for example, do not license them (obviously) and would not want to know, and how would any vehicle be identified as carrying fare paying passengers?

Having given it all a lot of thought, I think that in court, when the question was raised as to what crime was committed when any vehicle, other than a Hackney, plied for hire on Private land, I think the answer should have been: they would be acting as an unlicensed Hackney carriage, but following yesterdays judgement I am not certain even about that now.

Sussex · **Posted:** Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

Doc G wrote:

Not only could rapists, murderers etc. ply for hire on private land, there is no control over the type and condition of vehicles, no easy means of their identification, no way of tracking them down, no control over fares charged etc - all of which, at the very least, go against the sprit and intentions of both Hackney and PH Law – which were obviously enacted to safeguard the public.

There is control, it's just that the DJ doesn't agree. Alas he got it wrong. :sad:

Stationtone · **Posted:** Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:17 pm

Doc G wrote:

In a judgement made today, an out of area Hackney carriage was found to be not guilty of plying for hire, on private land because of the “not a street etc..” – no big surprise there!

In the summing up, the judge stated that in his view ANY vehicle, so long as it held insurance for hire and reward, could legally pick up, not booked, via plying for hire, at any venue, so long as the land was private.

So this would mean a free for all for anybody, and it seems it does not matter if a vehicle is licensed in any form at all - a private car will be ok it seems.

I have difficulty understanding this view, and do not believe this is correct.

Would you gents consider this ruling, and perhaps be kind enough to comment?

I would be very grateful for any ideas as to how and an appeal of some kind could be made, and any precedence in terms of case law proving the contrary.

I am not sure if this will help, one of JDs posts
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... 1d750786a0

Taxi Driver Online

Old chestnuts!

Who is online