Taxi Driver Online

Hi. I have a little question. If you where on a sting operation for drivers picking up outside of their area and the driver stopped thinking you were giving him a ticket / fining him for leaving his for hire light on. He asks you if you are taxi licensing as he believes you are pulling him for his hire light, can you lie, and would you lie, then ask him to take you to a destination. It seems very unethical as you should show him the badge if he believes you are licensing and has stopped to pay his dues. Could you tell me your stance on this protocol and whether it is forceful? What are your guidelines if the driver has stopped for your officers? Is this lawful under the human rights act? Should they show him their badges/I.D.?
Thank you. Tracy

If I was out of my area and you tried to flag me down, I would not stop. If I was out of my area and you approached my stationary vehicle I would politely tell you that I am either booked or not for hire because I am out of my area. If I am out of my area what would give you the right to give me a ticket for anything?

_________________
Grandad,

If i was out of my area and you flagged me its what i think of as a bonus !

youd be lost if you was outside your LA, you dont do long runs

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

OK, now tell us who you are and the point of the post

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

So you're saying the driver stops out-of-area thinking it's an LO.

He asks the flagger if he's an LO, and the flagger says he isn't, but he really is.

But the driver believes he isn't and thus takes him.

So you're saying he picks up the punter illegally when he's made sure he's not an LO, although the LO misled the driver about it.

I suspect the facts suggest that the driver would have committed the offence if the flagger had actually been a member of the public, so to that extent it's not entrapment?

But what if the driver genuinely thought that an LO could flag him down out-of-area on a licensing matter?

But I suppose the problem is that if he wasn't obviously an official of some kind then why would a driver stop?

And if the driver then takes him anyway under the impession that the flagger isn't an LO then that undermines his claim that he thought it might have been an LO in the first place.

I mean, driver routinely stops for out-of-area flags, always ask the flagger if they're an LO knowing that if they turn out to be one he can say they lied and cry 'entrapment'. Plausible?

You're a Hack and you're out of Area ~ Your Begging Light is on ~ You're breaking the terms of your license.

You see a Punter flagging a Taxi and assume it's for you ~ You stop ~ You've committed an offence ~ That's it, there's no argument. I don't know what the penalty is and guess that, like everything else, it varies from Area to Area.

However, had you been booked, over the Phone, by e-mail, telegram or pigeon post ~ you're fine.

_________________
Don't dream it ~ Be it.

You only commit an offence if you pick up the passenger and charge them for the journey. Leaving your "For Hire" light switched on when you have cleared the meter after dropping off a fare out of your district is not in itself an offence and for a prosecution to be successful you would have to actually be caught picking up and either agreeing a fare, engaging your meter or charging a fare before, during or at the end of a journey.

A prosecution for plying for hire without a license - essentially what you would be doing is a criminal offence, would require evidence to proceed in court. I suggest that your top light reverting to its default setting of 'on' once you have cleared your meter would not be sufficient evidence of plying for hire.

Stopping for someone is not in itself an offence. They could be asking you for directions or for a business card for future use.

_________________
Steve.

there is caselaw available on it.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

O.K. Licensing officer flags taxi / stops taxi with for hire light on. Taxi driver realizes it is an officer from outside district and stops to plead. L.O.s do not admit they are who they are and don't charge him with offence of plying for hire. Instead they lie and tell him to take them to town. In the guidelines of test purchasing , can they do that when the driver thinks they are stopping him for having his hire light on - plying for hire, simple fine. Are they not under the regulations of investigatory powers 2002. Should they give up the ghost when they have been confronted about their stature as L.O.s. Wife of Taxi driver.

It seems to me that you're looking for a way around the fact that a licensed taxi driver picked up outside their area. If as you say they denied being enforcement or indeed LOs that does not mean the driver is ok to take them anywhere they want to go as the driver is not licensed in the area in which they was 'stopped'

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Who was out of district here? The taxi driver? The LO? or both?
I think the driver has simply tried to pick up a flag down outside his district and got caught and is now trying to find a way of wriggling out of it.

_________________
Grandad,

The way courts tend to look at entrapment is one of allowing the 'taxi' driver every opportunity to refuse a hiring for which he isn't licensed.

That if an enforcement officer did no more than offer an opportunity to offend in the same way as a member of public could have then it could be lawful. Specifically approved the decision in Nottingham City Council v Amin [2000 WLR 1071] (from the NALEO book)

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/53.html

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1979/3.html

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1996/16.html

The Nottingham CC vs. Amin case; viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4025

The judge held;

Held – Neither the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights nor the forthcoming implementation of the 1998 Act obliged the court to exclude, under s 78 of the 1984 Act, evidence obtained by police officers who had participated in the commission of a crime when, as in the instant case, there was no evidence of any pressure exerted by the constables or of any persuasion of the driver and there was no question of any misunderstanding. It followed that the admission of the evidence of the police officers had not had such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it should have been excluded by the magistrate under s 78 of the 1984 Act. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed (see p 948 j to p 949 a, p 950 f and p 953 j to p 954 b d e, post); Teixeira de Castro v Portugal (1998) 4 BHRC considered. Per curiam. The question raised by a case stated should be as simple as possible and directed to the crucial question on which the case turns. It is also desirable that the summary of the competing submissions is reasonably succinct (see p 954 c e, post).

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

grandad


I think your right.....and i bet tracy is the driver or the drivers missus....lol

rooflights illuminate automatically when the meter is stopped/off hire, or at least my last one did, there was an override switch but no-one used it

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most