Taxi Driver Online

Futher case law on Driving a licensed hackney carriage without a current H/C drivers license?

Darlington Borough Council v Thain

Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office List)

HEARING-DATES: 23 February 1995

23 February 1995

COUNSEL:
R Merritt for the Appellant; The Respondent did not appear and was not represented

PANEL: Rose LJ, Tuckey J

JUDGMENTBY-1: TUCKEY J

JUDGMENT-1:
TUCKEY J: This is an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the Durham Justices who dismissed an information alleging that on 25 July 1993 the Respondent,

Mr Thain, acted as a driver of a Hackney carriage, not then having obtained a licence to act as such a driver, contrary to s 46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

For over a hundred years, Parliament has decreed either by special Act or by the Town Police Clauses Act that Hackney carriages, or taxis as I shall call them, which ply for hire have to be licensed, and those who drive such taxis also have to be licensed.

In the instant case, the Respondent, Mr Thain, was the owner of a licensed taxi. He insured this vehicle for use both as a taxi and for his own private use. Until 14 June 1993 he was also a licensed driver, but on that day, his licence expired. He had applied to renew it but a week later the Appellant authority, Darlington Borough Council, refused this application.

The facts giving rise to the charge as found by the Justices were that on the evening of 25 July 1993 the Respondent had gone in his licensed taxi to pick up his daughter and son-in-law at 1.30 am in the morning at a nightclub or hotel called Tall Trees in Yarm. Unfortunately for him, partying in the same place was a Mr David Thornton, who was the Taxi Licensing Officer of Darlington Borough Council. He saw Mr Thain picking up his daughter and son-in-law. At that time the roof light on the taxi was illuminated, the plate number was displayed, as were the decals (whatever they are) on the side of the vehicle.

The Justices accepted that on the night in question Mr Thain had not intended to ply for hire. Indeed, by 24 July he had leased out his taxi to someone else and it was that person (who was a licensed driver) who was going to collect his daughter and son-in-law. But this driver became ill and was unable to go, so Mr Thain stepped in to meet the difficulty.

The Justices concluded that Mr Thain's sole purpose that evening was to transport his daughter and son-in-law from Tall Trees, and that he was, therefore, using the vehicle at the time as his private motor vehicle, not withstanding that it was a licensed Hackney carriage.

As they say in the case: "We accordingly dismissed the information against the Respondent..." They took the view that as he was not intending to ply for hire that evening he had committed no offence.

The section under which he was charged, s 46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 says: "No person shall act as driver of any hackney carriage licensed in pursuance of this or the special Act to ply for hire... without first obtaining a licence...."

The Appellant's contention before the Justices and before this Court was that the driver's intention at the time is immaterial: if he is driving a licensed taxi and has no licence to do so he commits an offence under this section.

The Justices rejected this contention when dismissing the information against the Respondent, but in the case which they have stated for our opinion they conclude by saying:

"During the preparation of this case we have considered again the case of Yates v Gates and received further guidance upon that judgment, and are now of the opinion that in accordance with the decision in Yates v Gates, if a vehicle is licensed as a hackney carriage and at the material time bears the appearance of a hackney carriage, the driver of the vehicle must be the holder of a hackney carriage driver's licence."

Yates v Gates [1972] QB 27, [1970] 1 All ER 754 is a decision of this court. In his judgment the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, at P31.H says:

"The justices took the view that since on the occasion in question the sign "for hire" was not illuminated, and in the circumstances that the defendant was not driving the vehicle for hire, therefore he did not require a license,"

He then says that the Justices in that case dismissed the information on that basis. After referring to s 46 he said:

"Pausing there, it is undoubtedly true that the defendant did not have the necessary licence, and that the vehicle in question was itself licensed to ply for hire. The justices, however, took the view that unless the vehicle was plying for hire it would not be a hackney carriage, the driver of which would require a licence. That, of course, envisages that a vehicle licensed as a hackney carriage as defined in section 38 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, must change its character from moment to moment; when it is not plying for hire it is not a hackney carriage, and when it is plying for hire it is a hackney carriage."

He then says, and these are the important words:

"In my judgment section 46 is perfectly plain. No person shall drive any vehicle which is licensed as a hackney carriage, whatever it may be doing at the particular moment, unless he himself has a licence as required by section 46."

The Court allowed the prosecutors appeal.

With that very clear statement of principle it is not surprising, in my judgment, that the Justices were (when they reconsidered the case) decided that they had got it wrong. In my judgment they had. This offence is committed whenever a licensed taxi is driven by someone who is not licensed to do so, irrespective of his intention at the material time.

The question which the Justices posed for our consideration is whether in law a person who is not the holder of a Hackney carriage driver's licence may drive his own motor vehicle for a private purpose, if that motor vehicle is licensed as a Hackney carriage, and on the face of it bears the appearance of a Hackney carriage. I would answer that question, "no".

JUDGMENTBY-2: ROSE LJ

JUDGMENT-2:
ROSE LJ: I agree. The question will be answered as my Lord has indicated, and the appeal is consequently allowed.

DISPOSITION:
Appeal allowed. No order as to costs.

SOLICITORS:
Legal Department, Darlington Borough Council