Taxi Driver Online

Defences and mitigation

A vital ingredient of the offence under the TPCA 1847, s 47 is 'plying for hire' and recourse should be had to paras [11.5]–[11.10].With reference to the TPCA 1847, s 55 offence, defence solicitors should check that the offence has been laid before the correct magistrates' court, see para [10.14]. The interaction of the TPCA 1847, ss 55 and MCA 58 have often caused problems for the prosecution as to which is the most appropriate offence to summons an offender for, though considerable guidance can be found from House v Reynolds.

1 [1977] 1 All ER 689, [1977] 1 WLR 88, see para [7.9].

Practitioners may consider the utilisation of the LG(MP)A 1976, ss 72 and 75 for the LG(MP)A 1976, s 66 offence. Where an individual is able to indicate that their contravention of the Act was due to the act or default of another person (this includes a body corporate), the other person can be convicted instead of or with the contravenor. Though the LG(MP)A 1976, s 72 does not provide a defence, it can be very powerful mitigation and may even lead to the prosecution reconsidering its decision to continue the prosecution against the original party.

The LG(MP)A 1976, s 75 states that the LG(MP)A 1976 does not apply to certain types of vehicles such as wedding vehicles, funeral director vehicles, vehicles used under contract for a period of hire exceeding seven days etc.The Divisional Court have tended to give a narrow interpretation to the TPCA 1847, s 75. See Pitts v Lewis1 as discussed at paras [6.14]–[6.21] for greater detail.
1 [1989] RTR 71.

Procedure and evidence

All these offences are triable summarily only; notice of intended prosecution not being required to be given. Though the defence have no right to advance disclosure of the prosecution case, it is not unusual for the prosecution to serve all documents with the summons to enable the case to proceed in the absence at court of the defendant. Such enclosures can prove very useful to a defence solicitor in receipt of vague, incomplete instructions to advise correctly upon plea etc.

In the event reliance is being made by the prosecution on the LG(MP)A 1976, enquiries ascertaining whether Part II of the LG(MP)A 1976 has been formally adopted should be made, for failure to do so may render reliance inoperative.Though it is common practice for district councils to delegate tasks such as authorisation of prosecutions, a check should be made to verify that such authorisation was correct and followed the councils terms of reference regarding delegation. It is of course illegal for a district council to delegate its functions to an individual councillor purporting to constitute a committee of one1.

1 R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Hillingdon London Borough Council [1986] 1 All ER 810, [1986] 1 WLR 192.

Penalty

None of the offences outlined are capable of giving rise to endorsement on offenders licences nor disqualification nor a term of imprisonment on conviction. Any fine imposed for any of the offences shall not exceed level III on the standard scale. With regard to the TPCA 1847, s 55 offence, any excess fare may be recoverable by way of complaint as a civil debt to a magistrates' court.A conviction for any of these offences may render the offender to be reconsidered by the local district council as to whether they are still 'fit and proper' to hold a licence. In the event that the district council's licensing committee consider suspension or revocation of the drivers licence to be appropriate, a right of appeal can be made to the magistrates' court, see para O[13.1]–[13.32].

Interesting, So it might be possible that in the event of being flagged by the LO during one of his nightly jaunts, he could be as guilty as the driver.
With him knowing the flag would be illegal, but he still tried it.
it was raining and the driver felt sorry for him, yob's were out and about and the druver feared that if he left him he could be vunerable so he picked him up.

I think the best mitigation story I have read is the one where a chap at some fair picked up a tribe of pikeys.

Although only licensed for 4, he ended up taking up to 10 of them.

Anyway this was seen by a LO, and the chap was prosecuted.

In court the driver said he was terrified about what would happen if he told them to get out, fair enough in my view.

The judge, bless him, asked the LO why he didn't go over and ask the pikeys to get out himself, the LO said you have got to be f***ing joking, or words to that effect.

With that the judge said (again words to that effect) well if you didn't feel safe binning the pikeys how the f*** do you expect the driver to do like-wise.

And dismissed the case.

_________________
IDFIMH