Taxi Driver Online

I'm not sure if I have posted this previously?

Wurzal v Addison
(DC) Divisional Court
25 November 1964

[1965] 2 Q.B. 131

[1965] 2 W.L.R. 131

[1965] 1 All E.R. 20

(1965) 129 J.P. 86

(1964) 108 S.J. 1046

Subject: Highways

Passenger vehicles; Payments; Road traffic offences

Public service vehicles; express carriage; separate fares

Summary: To constitute an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 118(3)(b) (carrying passengers for hire or reward, and carrying passengers at separate fares), it is irrelevant that the payment is made to someone other than the driver or owner of the vehicle. R, owned a minibus and contracted with P. that he, as a hire-car operator, should provide a taxi daily to carry P. and some of her friends from their place of work to their homes, it being agreed that P. should pay to R. the daily fare of 7s. and that R. should carry up to seven passengers.

The minibus was licensed as "private," and was insured to carry seven passengers. P. paid to R. the daily fare of 7s. and recovered from the passengers a sum as their share of the cost. R. was charged with unlawfully causing the minibus to be used as an express carriage, contrary to s. 127(1) of the 1960 Act and with unlawfully driving a public service vehicle on a road, without licence so to do, contrary to s. 144(1).

The justices upheld a submission of no case on the grounds that the vehicle was not shown to be suited to the carrying of eight or more passengers, and that, as the amount paid for the cost of the journeys was the same irrespective of the number of passengers, they were not being carried at separate fares. On appeal by the prosecution, it was held that (1) the justices were entitled to say that the necessary proof was not forthcoming to make a prima facie case that the vehicle was adapted to carry eight or more passengers within s. 117(1)(b); but (2) the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers for hire or reward and carrying passengers at separate fares; accordingly, the case would be remitted for the hearing to be continued.

(Maddox v. Storer [1963] 1 Q.B. 451 followed and McLeod v. Penman Hamilton v. Blair Meechan and Hawthorn v. Knight 1962 J.C. 31 followed; Lyons v. Denscombe [1947-51] C.L.Y. 9127 explained and distinguished).

Cases Cited

Lyons v Denscombe, [1947-51] C.L.Y. 9127 (DC)
MacLeod v Penman (John), 1962 J.C. 31; 1962 S.L.T. 69; [1962] Crim. L.R. 332 (HCJ Appeal)
Maddox v Storer, [1963] 1 Q.B. 451; [1962] 2 W.L.R. 958; [1962] 1 All E.R. 831; (1962) 126 J.P. 263; 61 L.G.R. 41; (1962) 106 S.J. 372 (DC)

Legislation Cited

Road Traffic Act 1960 Part II
Road Traffic Act 1960 Part III
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 117
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 118
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 127
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 144
Road Traffic Act 1937
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 61
Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1955 (SI 1955 1664) Reg. 3

Citations to the Case

Applied by

Vickers v Bowman, [1976] R.T.R. 165; [1976] Crim. L.R. 77 (DC)

Considered by

Westacott v Centaur Overland Travel, [1981] R.T.R. 182 (DC)

Explained by

Traffic Commissioners for South Wales Traffic Area v Snape, [1977] R.T.R. 367; [1977] Crim. L.R. 427 (DC)