Taxi Driver Online

Fare dodger given a curfew

A woman who jumped out of a taxi and sprinted off without paying has been ordered to repay the fare and hit with a curfew order.

Tammy Amanda Wane, 24, of Caroline Street, Preston, ran off without paying a fare of just £12.80. She appeared before magistrates in Preston and was ordered to repay the money. She was also hit with a two month curfew between 7pm and 6am each day
________________________

That is so good to hear, but why does the law differ from one part of the country to another.

Down here we have been fobbed off with it's a civil matter time and time again. I once had a row with one very bolshie copper in gwent, who then reluctantly took my statement including the runners mates address who was dropped off first.

Some months later - a sorry we cannot do anything about it

A pound to a pinch of salt that he never even tried.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

bring back the stocks

I was talking to a good friend of mine today in the shop who is a taxi driver, about this very situation and i cant remember exactly what legislation or act it was but he assured me it is a matter for the police, maybe someone else could supply the relevant details.

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

I think in some areas great efforts by the local trade has meant the local police, and more importantly their bosses, are made aware of the law, and the fact that the taxi/PH trade can be a good friend of theirs if they are good friends of the taxi/PH trade.

In other areas it's not been so easy, but every little helps.

_________________
IDFIMH

It's on here a number of times.

Basically if the punters gets in knowing they can't pay and/or does a runner, then that's in breach of section 1 of the 1978 Theft Act.

If they say they didn't know they didn't have any money but promise pay in a reasonable time, but don't, then that makes it's a civil offence.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sometime ago I rang the CPS to find out what their policy was, and did the decision come from them not to prosecute.

All the CPS are concerned about is and I quote, (1) Do they have a reasonable chance of a conviction, and (2) Is the case in the public interest. If that criteria is met then they are willing to prosecute, so basically it is the police who are at fault.

I would bet that it would be a different story if someone took money from their wage packet, because basically there is not any difference.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

Thanks for the replies folks, i guess times are a changing as many years ago when i had a runner in Cheshunt, once i caught em and took em to the local station the matter was resolved in a matter of minutes

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

In a nutshell as with most other offences there has to be some kind of criminal intent for the person to be guilty of a crime.

So if someone has forgotten their money then that's a civil matter. But if someone knows that they don't have the means to pay then there's obviously an intent there and thus an offence has been committed.

However, in practice it's proving the criminal intent that's the problem, so someone could easily just claim that they'd forgotten their money when in actual fact they didn't have any money all along. But in the case of a runner then the intent is fairly obvious.

Of course, the other practical problem is that the police may not be interested or don't think it's worth pursuing for whatever reason, as with any other crime.

If they say it's a civil matter then that's either a genuine appraisal of the situation, or they're trying to fob you off or they're ignorant of the law.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

It's perhaps worth pointing out how section 1 of the 1978 Act came about - it reads:

A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence.

The problem with the basic definition of theft (in an earlier Act) is that it covered the taking of property belonging to another person, but if you're provided with a service such as a taxi ride then there's no property involved, unlike if the person stole the actual taxi.

So the 1978 Act was passed to cover the provision of services.

Another interesting aspect of the original Act was that the thief had to intend to "permanently deprive" the owner of the property, thus if somone just borrowed something then it wouldn't amount to theft.

However, this meant that joyriders couldn't be convicted of theft because they didn't intend to deprive the owner of the car permanently, just borrow it for a while

So the offence of "taking without owner's consent" was developed to cover this, and hence the phrase TWOCCING

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk