Taxi Driver Online

After a quite lengthy discussion with the owner of the taxi firm involved in this case, it would appear that the IoL article is allegedly a little mis-leading.

And it would appear that we, including me have all 'got the wrong end of the stick' ..... slightly.

Big, big post to follow, but this IS a B to C job, where A is the taxi base, B is the pick-up point in a rural location & C is the destination.

A, B & C are all within the prescribed distance / licensing authority's area.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

My mistake ..... of course you are correct ..... the law is already there & does not need case law to verify it.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

The article on the IoL web-site gave me the impression & I suspect may others (judging by the posts on this topic) that this case had gone to the divisional court by way of appeal, after the decision of the Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates’ Court.

Wrong!!!

Indeed the IoL article does state;

‘These questions were settled by Lord Justice Sullivan and Mr Justice Openshaw in the divisional court in a case stated from Stratford on Avon magistrates’ court.’

Wrong again!!!

I have now been reliably informed by the owner of the taxi firm involved, that the council took the case to the divisional court for judicial review. The judicial review was against the Magistrates’ Court decision which was included in the IoL article & stated;

‘They also decided to exclude the officer’s evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as the driver had been persuaded to commit the alleged offences and the officer’s evidence was unfair.’

From what I have been told, it is would appear that because of this action by the Magistrates’ Court the council were successful in their judicial review. All that seems to have happened is that the divisional court has given a judicial review judgment in favour of the council, for the case to be re-heard by a different bench at Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates’ Court, but this time to include the officer’s evidence.

It appears that the divisional court did not agree that the officer’s evidence should have been excluded in the Magistrates’ Court. Therefore, it seems that all that has happened in this case is NOTHING.

The case now starts afresh in the Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates’ Court at a future date which is yet to be fixed.

It’s only 23 miles down the road from me & I’m going to have a listen when it come up.

PS. Talk about journalistic licence! The Institute of Licensing appears to now license journalists too.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

What is confusing about the IoL article is that it talks about the divisional court & then later about the High Court.

In the divisional court part of the article it mentions the Magistrates' Court decision to exclude the officer's evidence & then when it goes onto the High Court part of the article it mentions intricacies of secion 67 & the Hackney Carriage driver in question & what he should have known etc.

Also, this appears to be the second such case in the Stratford-upon-avon area; the first being an independent HC who did the same.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

I seem to remember reading a case on entrapment, it took place in Wales, regarding using licensing officers..... they were found to be breaking the law.... most councils now use volunteers from orther departments... as they do not have a particular advantage regarding the law over the driver in question. I think I would be re reading the laws relating to entrapment.

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

Please tell them not to appeal on that basis.

_________________
IDFIMH

My view is that the meter could be started from where you got the booking from, as you were then contracted to do the job i.e. hired.

Not sure that would go down well in urban areas, but if a punter in the sticks is willing to pay the running too price, then IMO that's legal.

_________________
IDFIMH

The case was 'case stated'.

In other words the council didn't appeal, they just requested a higher court look at it again. The higher court has deemed what the law is now, and it goes back to the mags court for them to decide on the issues at hand, with the now correct updated law.

_________________
IDFIMH

I may not have your experience but to me that is just wrong. They may have rand days before so do you start the meter when you get the call because as you say, "you were then contracted."

The driver was contracted to pick up at point B at a certain time and that is where the job starts and it ends when they arrive at point C.

_________________
Grandad,

Are we talking morally wrong, or legally wrong?

The former I agree, the latter I don't.

_________________
IDFIMH

I would had thought it was a telephone booking from an office and not a off the street hire. Which turns that into a private hire job, whether a hack or ph cover that job still doesn’t need to have the meter on as it was a set fare.

Behave yourself mate. A hackney doing a private hire job within the prescribed area can't charge more than the metered rate. I thought that was agreed. The bit that hasn't been agreed is the point that the meter can be turned on.

_________________
Grandad,

A taxi is always a taxi, and must always adhere to whatever local taxi rules apply.

The nature of the hiring is irrelevant.

_________________
IDFIMH

what a mess , they should had sent a ph to cover that one

Maybe it's a 100% taxi fleet.

_________________
IDFIMH