Taxi Driver Online

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.

Post the judgement please

CC

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

Hi Captain Cab

What I have stated is what was heard by several people in court, but nothing seen in writing as yet.

Forgive my ignorance, but is a summation automatically issued in writing as a matter of course? Or does an application have to be made?

Was it a Crown Court or High Court thing?

CC

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

Magistrates, but held in front of a district judge

You should be able to obtain a transcript from the court, it might cost a few quid though.

Because it was held in front of a District Judge.......I wonder who asked for that? ........I think it has the same standing as a Crown Court, therefore to appeal needs to go to a higher court.

I've been sending one NTA member some court cases on this same issue albeit railway land.

I have to wonder what the Judge in your case considered.

From memory the Eastbourne Case was fairly good in terms of the 'not a street' issue, as was another case involving a pub car park.

CC

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

You could ask to 'state' the case, which would mean the judgement would go to the higher courts for legal clarification.

I doubt many, if any, insurance companies would insure a non-taxi/PH/PSV for hire and reward.

This really does need clarification.

_________________
IDFIMH

The DJ is a position that use to be called a 'Stipendiary' Magistrate, and has the same powers as a bench of magistrates. I suspect due to the unusual nature of the offence he was given it.

Any appeal, if the case isn't stated, would go before a Crown Court Judge sitting with two Magistrates. That is defo an avenue to consider.

_________________
IDFIMH

Thanks for clarifying that.

CC

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

Courtesy of TDO......the Late JD;

Another old case referred to in many judgements in particular the Eastbourne case.

White v Cubitt [1930]

Court: DC
Judgment Date: circa 1930

Applied Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling [2001] RTR 65, [2001] Crim LR 42, (2000) Times, 16 November, [2000] All ER (D) 1602 DC 31/10/2000


Considered Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co v Thompson [1918] 2 KB 105, 16 LGR 544, 82 JP 213, 87 LJKB 915, 119 LT 140 DC circa 1918


ROAD TRAFFIC - HACKNEY AND OTHER CARRIAGES AND LONDON CABS - HACKNEY AND STAGE CARRIAGES OUTSIDE LONDON - HACKNEY CARRIAGES - WAITING TO TAKE UP PASSENGERS — PRIVATE GROUND — SEPARATED FROM HIGHWAY BY STONE SETTS


A motor car stood on a piece of private ground belonging to a public house at Barnes and separated from the highway only by a line of level stone setts, which offered no obstruction to the passage either of the motor car or of persons desiring to enter it from the highway. There members of the public entered the car, which was licensed as a hackney carriage for revenue purposes, but which was not licensed to ply for hire within the Metropolitan Police District, and on payment of 6d to the driver were driven to the Richmond Park Golf Club: Held the motor car was plying for hire in a ‘public street, road, or place’ within Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (c 115).

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

That is too broad a comment if true. If he says private land that has no access for the general public, and vehicles are parked out of sight of the main road, then maybe he is right.

If not then he is woefully wrong. IMO you got the wrong Sussex DJ.

_________________
IDFIMH

Montgomery v Loney [1959] NI 171

Defined so as to include a Petrol Station Forecourt as a road or other public place. Public had access albeit that only those wishing to do business there did so.

Director of Public Prosecutins -v- Vivier [1991] 4 All ER 18 1991

Simon Brown J

Road Traffic


There had been a traffic accident in a large privately owned caravan park. Held: Premises will be private where they are entered for reasons beneficial to the occupier.

Referring to Harrison v Hill: "What Lord Sands, and indeed Lord Clyde, say in Harrison v Hill can really be summarised thus. A road is one to which the public have access if (a) it is in fact used by members of the public and (b) such use is expressly or implicitly allowed -- or, putting it the other way round, not achieved by overcoming physical obstruction or defying express or implied prohibition.

Factor (b) presents no problem. But factor (a) does. In particular, as it seems to us, (a) essentially begs rather than answers the other crucial question whether those who use the road are members of the public. Take our case. We have not the least hesitation in accepting that the only material use of this caravan park was by those who had complied with the various site requirements and been properly admitted, in short those who had been expressly or implicitly allowed into the caravan park, either as caravaners or campers or as their bona fide guests. We think it right to ignore both the few trespassers who escaped the security controls and also the users of the bridleway (which in any event could not affect the character of the park as a whole). And, indeed we do not understand Mr Glen for the prosecutor to contend otherwise.

What that leaves outstanding, however, is the critical question: are the caravaners, campers and guests to be regarded, within the park, still as members of the general public, or are they instead, as the justices found, at that stage a special class of members of the public?

Upon that question, Harrison v Hill helps but little: there is simply Lord Clyde's reference to 'the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes' to use the farm road." and
"How then, in some particular road or place is used by an identifiable category of people, should justices decide whether that category is 'special' or 'restricted' or 'particular' such as to distinguish it from the public at large? What, in short, is the touchstone by which to recognise a special class of people from members of the general public?

Some light is thrown upon the problem by the passage already cited from Lord MacDermott CJ's judgment in Montgomery v Loney [1959] NI 171 at 177: one asks whether there is about those who obtain permission to enter 'some reason personal to them for their admittance'. If people come to a private house as guests, postmen or meter readers, they come for reasons personal to themselves, to serve the purposes of the occupier.

But what of the rather different type of case such as the present where those seeking entry are doing so for their own (rather than the occupier's) purposes and yet are screened in the sense of having to satisfy certain conditions for admission. Does the screening process operate to endow those passing through with some special characteristic whereby they lose their identity as members of the general public and become instead a special class?

Our approach would be as follows. By the same token as one asks in the earlier type of case whether permission is being granted for a reason personal to the user, in these screening cases one must ask: do those admitted pass through the screening process for a reason, or on account of characteristic personal to themselves? Or are they in truth merely members of the public who are being admitted as such and processed simply so as to make them subject to payment and whatever other conditions the landowner chooses to impose?

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

Sussex Said:

Correct, as ever.

Also:

If by general public, you mean patrons entering a nightclub, then it has general access, and although the club entrance is some 50 meters aaway from the highway, the vehicles can clearly be seen.

The case was specifically relating to the alleged offence of plying for hire by an out of area Hack, and was dismissed on the grounds that it was "not a street"

What concerns me are the comments that it would therefore be ok for any other vehicle to ply for hire on private land - although not directly relevant in some ways to this particular case, it was used as an example - and I think that summation is wrong

Proving it is another matter though

Each case must be viewed on it's own merit. Summaries of cases of interest on public place (the general principles are not only relevant to traffic matters) are:-

Bowman v DPP 1990. A multi storey car park was held to be a public place where a vehicle was seen driving around in the early hours of the morning. At this time the barrier was raised. The decision was despite the fact that the car park only operated during shopping hours. The magistrates used their local knowledge of the situation. SEE ALSO THE MEANING OF ROAD.

Sandy v Martin 1974. Due to a lack of sufficient evidence that a licensee's invitation to his customers continued more than one hour after closing time, the public house car park was held not to be a public place after such time had elapsed. Therefore a car park attached to a public house may be regarded as a public place during general licensing hours but may well no longer be so outside these hours.

DPP v Greenwood 1997. A hospital owned car park which is used by visitors attending the premises for a variety of hospital related purposes is a public place, but also see (k) below.

R v Collinson 1931. A private field, to which the public were admitted to view races, (pedestrians free, vehicles on payment of a fee), was held to be a public place.

Pugh v Knipe 1972. A proprietary club car park was held not to be a public place, it was stated that it would be necessary to establish that the public had access to the place for it to be considered so.

Elkins v Cartlidge 1947. An enclosure with an open gateway leading from a public house car park, was held to be equally part of the car park and consequently was a public place.

Paterson v 0gilvy 1957 (a Scottish case). The official visitors car park at a highland show, to which entry was obtained by payment, was held to be a public place.

Dunne v Keane 1976. When considering the driveway from a road to a hotel, it was said that a place may be a public place even if there is a right to exclude certain members of the public.

Copell v DPP 1990. An "off the road parking bay" adjacent to a highway with no physical impediment between the road and the bay was held to be a public place.

DPP v Neville 1996. An electric buggy knocked down a child in pier 7 of terminal 3 at Heathrow Airport. The driver was charged and found guilty of driving without reasonable consideration. On appeal it was held that such an area of the airport was a public place.

R v Spence 1999. A company car park consisted of a relatively small enclosed area located in an industrial estate next to some offices. It was only used by employees, customers and visitors on business. It was held NOT to be a public place. The wider general public had no cause to visit the car park and the people who did use it were of too limited a section of the community to make it public.

R v DPP ex parte Taussik 2000. A cul-de-sac leading to a council block of flats with a sign saying 'Private Residents Only' was not a public place BECAUSE the police evidence of public usage was insufficient to show it was being used as a public place. Firmer evidence may have clarified the matter in the favour of the prosecution.

Planton v DPP 2001. A driver was 'over the limit' on a manmade causeway between the mainland and an island. At the mainland entrance to the causeway were notices stating 'Private Road - Residents and Authorised Vehicles only'. Apart from the residents and their visitors the only people crossing the causeway were service industry workers and the like. There was nothing on the island, such as a beauty spot or a viewpoint, which attracted anyone else. The causeway was not a public place.

R v Waters (John James) 1963 A man was found intoxicated with alcohol laying beside his van in an hotel carpark. It was used routinely as a lay-by by passers-by and was not fenced off from the main road. The defence argued that certain members of the public (coaches & lorries) were denied access thus making it private. However the court decided that, even if this did happen at certain times of the day, there would have to be more physical evidence of certain people being excluded before it could consider that the car park had become private. The landlord visiting the car park and asking people to leave was not sufficient evidence to support the notion of it being private.

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

Sussex said:


I really want to, but I am already down a leg, an arm and a left nut!

I presume that this action would involve mega bucks.

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