Taxi Driver Online

Flipping pervert!

If these four “AA united” cases go to appeal it should be very interesting.

I suspect the chances of the accused appealing, is far greater than that of the council. I am wondering, should the council lose in the Magistrates court, will they have the resolve to take it any further. If the verdict goes against them I am quite sure that AA united will appeal.

The Court date of May 14th may be incorrect, as the listing office at Hemel Hempstead Magistrates court has no such listings for that date.

The cab trade news got it wrong when it said “the Taxi drivers were thrown off the station in 2002”.

From a legal point of view the case will be very interesting because it encapsulate a wide range of judicial decisions that have been made over the last hundred years. What is interesting about this case is that it brings into question the validity of station bye-laws. The case which will most undoubtedly be to the for is that of Birmingham Airport.

The offence of illegally plying for hire on private land has never been an issue, the case law for this dates back a long a way, long before the Eastbourne decision. In fact I have pointed out in previous posts that the Eastbourne decision was derived at from prior case law dating back decades, but Eastbourne is a decision that has clearly brought it home to those in the Taxi trade that Plying for public hire is an offence confined not only to our public highways but also to private land.

What about the coming cases? I suspect we can assume that the four drivers plying for hire on Watford station picked up passengers that hadn’t pre-booked. Clearly that is an offence, or perhaps they approached members of the public at the station and asked them would they like a Taxi, that is also an offence. Perhaps the Public were not public at all but Watford Licensing officers. Whatever actions these four drivers took must have been related in some way to the licensing officers of Watford Council.

The offence of Aiding and abetting is interesting, I am wondering if the council enforcement officers specifically went out to snare AA united as aiders and abettors. In this instance the offence of aiding and abetting would only be applied if AA United knowingly assisted in the crime being alleged. To that extent I assume that AA United conspired to assist in the offence by knowingly either giving tacit acknowledgement to what was taking place or they assisted the drivers concerned by way of entering information into their log sheets after the hire had taken place.

By that I mean the private hire driver may have phoned in saying he had picked up a job from the station and the operator then entered the details of that hire into the log sheet. That would constitute aiding and abetting.

The circumstances of the offences are not known to me but if anyone can shed any light on what is alleged I would be most grateful.

AA united hope the case will go on this month but don’t be surprised if the case is adjourned. Also remember that this is the first hearing so unless all the accused plead guilty the likelihood of the case being heard this month is remote.

Best wishes

John Davies.

Maybe the drivers picked up the punters before they should, then called the office with the name.

What I do know is that trying to catch drivers via bogus customers (LOs) is not as easy as we think. It has to be well planned, well documented and even then a prosecution isn't certain.

From memory the vehicles where parked on the station, with the drivers in the office, thus they couldn't be accused of plying for hire. However if they got a bit lazy, and stayed in the motor whilst parked up, then they could be in trouble.

However, as all this latest info has come via CTN, a large pinch of salt is required.

_________________
IDFIMH

In order to get a watertight case there are certain things that have to be done to make sure you get a conviction. We here in Manchester were the first to bring multiple private prosecutions against Private hire drivers illegally plying for hire. We did so because illegal plying for hire was prevalent in the city and still is to this day.

The major protagonists of illegal plying for hire are the Asian drivers, as in the past there is no regular enforcement to stop them committing these offences. However, I have the feeling that the patience of the Taxi trade here in Manchester is wearing very thin and we may have to once again resurrect the policy of catching these pirates ourselves.

If this does happen, it will be on a far larger scale than was the case in the early nineties, when we successfully prosecuted over two hundred drivers.

With regard to Watford station I may have overlooked the fact that the licensing department may have brought the case just because the drivers were sat in their vehicles in a public place with the anticipation of being hired. That would be analogous to the Eastbourne case.

Assuming Watford licensing department have done their home work and got these PH drivers bang to rights, I think Silverlink may learn a valuable lesson in the law. Having said that, it still doesn't mean Silverlink have to reinstate Watford Cab Drivers on the Station Taxi rank.

I stated previously that the Birmingham airport case would probably be at the heart of any defence the Private hire drivers put forward. The problem with that is that the Taxi drivers at Birmingham Airport were licensed Taxi drivers and the Rank were they were plying for hire was deemed not to be public enough to come under the definition of a public place.

With regard to Watford station, AA united drivers would have had to be situated in an underground car park in order for them to be deemed not to be plying for public hire. That’s how obscure a private hire driver has to be in order to obtain relief from the charge of plying for hire in a public place.

The law is very clear about illegally plying for hire. Just because a station official invites a private hire company on to station property to take passengers for hire and reward it does not exempt either the station or the Private hire company from the present law governing our trade.

In the main article I wrote about Watford Station, I dropped a subtle hint on the only course that could be taken by the Watford Taxi trade.

I informed Mr Sardar that he only had one option and that was through the courts, I even told him what had to be done and how to do it, but it seems the council are doing the work for him.

The only problem with the councils intervention is that I have the discomfort in thinking that their perseverance may be somewhat lacking.

I would have much preferred the TGWU to have got their hands dirty and brought the prosecutions themselves, at least then we would have been assured that the proceedings would run their course.

For me, it is fascinating stuff; it brings more clarity to the way our trade is run. Step by step anomalies are being broken down. I don't agree very often with the Cab section of the TGWU but I have always advocated a National cab act and free access to all public terminals, long before the TGWU ever did, it seems however that on those two issues we speak the same language.

Best wishes

John Davies.

If in doubt get the disabled to make a stink.
http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/l ... sgrace.php
T&G to a tee.

I understand the first hearing of this case has taken place and a trial date has been set for June.

I also understand that the person who made the charges was a Traffic Cop. It appears the Licensing department didn't get involved until it was presented with the evidence from this Traffic officer.

I have it on good Authority that AA united will appeal any guilty verdict.

Watford council was supposed to have something on their website about the case today but as yet it is not forthcoming.

Watch this space.

Best wishes

John Davies

Details of the Watford case as reported by the City Council.

http://www.watford.gov.uk/news/default.asp

Best wishes

John Davies.

I look forward to this being sorted,
Plying for hire amounts to being immediately available for hire, either without being licensed as a Hackney carriage or by not being pre-booked through a licensed private hire vehicle operator, although the law does not say how far in advance an ‘advance booking’ must be made.

But even if they do get found guilty, the penaties are very low, and some may say worth the risk.

If I was the council I would go for the un-insured avenue.

_________________
IDFIMH

They weren't carrying passengers so the charge of driving without valid insurance cover is not applicable. Do you know of any case where a a Private hire driver has been charged with driving without insurance when he has been stood empty?

Did you read about the asian P/H driver in yesterdays sun? he was convicted of driving without insurance, plying for hire and showing pornographic videos to his passengers. His passengers just happened to be licence enforcement officers.

Best wishes

JD

yes, Leeds enforcement officers, very famous case.

according to him all men should like porn?

I suspect it happens quite often, however as the onus is on the council to prove plying, a sensible PH will always have a reason for being there. As happened in a south coast town about 10 years ago. The driver said he was waiting for his daughter, and surprise surprise his daughter went to court to confirm it.

Even then the mags court went with the council. But the clerk to the court suggested that the driver appeal to the crown court, which he did, and was found not quilty there. Cost the council about £15,000.

If it's a taxi plying (empty) out of his area, I would say the chances of finding him quilty of plying to be very slim. As they don't need an ops license, they can say they are waiting for whoever, and don't even need the paperwork (or the daughter) to back it up.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex.
your appraisal is appauling
yes they do need the paperwork to proove it and yes all private hire need ops license to opperate.

all enforcement officers of all councils work together.

these days you sound like a cheep tout.

by the way wheres binnie got too?

miss his whining and winging!

Read what I said.

And then tell me where in any act a taxi has to keep records of the work he does, either via the rank or the phone.

_________________
IDFIMH