Taxi Driver Online

Hello everyone

I read in a judgement when I was 'down the rabbit hole' where a judge discussed section 75 and used the word 'engaged' when describing a PHV and section 75.

Do any of you happen to know this judgement so that I can revisit it please?

I've tried to follow my steps from the last time and used the search function but to no avail.

Any help will be gratefully apreciated.

Thanks in advance

Wardy

Well if you search for this it will find posts including both '1976' and 'engaged':

+engaged +1976

The search results are in the link below - there are only a few of them, so hopefully it should be one of these. Presumably the post you are looking for will include both 'engaged' and '1976'.

Only possible problem is that I think the search function only goes back about ten years or so.

search.php?keywords=%2B1976+%2Bengaged&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

Otherwise, just try searching for several terms that you think may be contained in the relevant judgement. The more distinctive the terms are the better, obviously. People's names and towns/cities/councils are always a good bet, as long as the name isn't too common, like John or James.

A google site search is an alternative option that might go back a bit further - try this link and just slot in the terms you want to find in the search window:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1976+ ... #cobssid=s

Stuart I think he might have been searching for section 75 which was used as a licensing get out clause until the loophole was closed over 10 years ago

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

Wardy, I admire your tenacity, but I am going to reply to you on this search question as a post on your original thread (which was moved to Licensing and Legal. (As this thread should be.))

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Edders, I did try searching for 75, but the search function said that it was too common, so it just ignores it. Not sure how it deals with numbers, precisely, but it's like very common words such as 'and' or 'if', which are too common, and the search facility will just ignore it.

But obviously the word 'engaged' isn't that common, but it's not particularly rare either, and searching for it brings up quite a lot of results. But I find it difficult to conceive that a case of that type wouldn't also mention '1976', so searching for 'engaged' AND '1976' should bring up the result, and shouldn't throw up too many, so fairly easy to look down the list of results to find it. (Assuming, of course, the post was made after 2010 or so, which seems to be as far back as the search function goes.)

Of course, what could cause problems is that Wardy thinks the case uses the word 'engaged', but maybe it doesn't really use it at all

Lost count of the amount of times I've tried to find a certain post, and I'm positive it must have used a certain fairly unusual word, so should be easy enough to find.

But when I eventually find it, the post didn't contain the word at all, and I've been on a wild goose chase

I put:

Judge and PHV and 1976 and 75

into the search on here, that comes up with 9 threads for you to look at Wardy. (The word "and" is the separator, so you could just cut and paste mine above into the relevant search box.)

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Actually comes up with 10, but the first is this thread, so I didn't count it.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Hi Chris, don't want to pick holes in your methodology here, but maybe just highlight some of the pitfalls in using the search function

And it's not an exact science. Or something like that.

First, and as per what I said yesterday, the results for your search say they've ignored "and 75" - I suspect that number strings will only be searched for if there's at least three or four digits, which is why it will search for 1976.

Second, surprisingly enough, the word "judge" may not be used in some judgements at all, because in formal judgements they often use formal titles and/or abbreviations.

For example, in the Dittah and Choudry judgement posted on here, the references are to:

"Kennedy LJ, Clarke J"

Which means Lord Justice Kennedy and Justice Clarke. So they're judges, but the word isn't actually used in the judgement.

By the same token, PHV doesn't appear in the judgement, and instead it's always the full 'private hire vehicle'

Dittah and Choudry judgement:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4660


Another possibility I was thinking of was that the case Wardy was looking for may in fact not have been directly posted on here, and instead it was a link to an external webpage or document, which wouldn't be picked up with this forum's search function

Quite a lot of the threads in the Court Case Database section of the forum don't actually include the judgement, and are external links. For example:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=37615

I knew all that. I was just trying to help Wardy out in his search technique.

It doesn't need to find Judge exactly, it would pick up JUDGEment for example.

He can use his own words in any search he makes, if he don't know it, the AND separator is useful.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

I refer folks to my post 8 years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27657

So if you put this into the google search bar 75 engaged site:taxi-driver.co.uk

You will get loads of stuff from TDO going back 20 plus years.

_________________
IDFIMH

Never doubted that, Chris, but just trying to add some nuance and one or two suggestions


Not sure if it would, actually. Think it has to be whole words in the type of search you're suggesting.

In fact it looks like you have to add a * for such a partial search. So it would be:

judge*

But which might not work anyway, because the correct word is actually *judgment* rather than *judgement*.

Or at least that's the way it's used in the official Dittah, er, judgment, although usage varies, and you have to use your, er, judgement

But certainly in official legal contexts, I think the correct word is judgment without the 'e'.

(Can never remember the difference, and couldn't be bothered looking it up yesterday. But having written this post and actually looked the correct usage up, I might actually remember it from now on )

While once again down the rabbit hole, I came across this that may interest you

The circumstances in which the 1976 Act was passed some 36 years ago may well be different from the circumstances that exist now. The same, of course, must be said of the 1847 Act. Sometimes it may be necessary in seeking to give effect to the meaning of an Act to have recourse to the maxim that a statute "continues to speak" in order to put the words of a statute passed in a different generation a contemporary relevance and impact. On the other hand, a statute can be passed with the deliberate Parliamentary intention that it is to be applied in a range of circumstances not necessarily foreseen or contemplated at the time it is passed. The words "without prejudice to the generality" seem to me to convey that approach.

Maybe this will make it easier...

Do any of you know of a case where the judge made a detailed explanation of s46 and s75 that is quoted by other judges to be the definitive explanation?

I know I read this sort of reference when I was down the rabbit hole...

It is my understanding that a Offence is not committed until the passenger has engaged a Vehicle and hired him, just flagging him down and him stopping is not an offence as I understand it

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