Taxi Driver Online

Timely reminder about driving a licensed cab without a license even though you may own it. Benson v Boyce a similiar case follows.
..................................................................

Darlington BC v Thain

(QBD) Queen's Bench Division

23 February 1995


[1995] C.O.D. 360

Summary

Subject: Licensing

Intention.

Abstract: DBC appealed by way of case stated from a decision of the Durham Justices (DJ) who dismissed an information that T had driven a licensed taxi without a licence contrary to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 46.

T owned a vehicle which was licensed as a taxi and insured for his own use as well as a taxi, but DBC had refused to renew his taxi licence. DJ took the view that at the time of an alleged offence he was making private use of the vehicle. On reading Yates v Gates [1972] Q.B. 27, however, DJ concluded that they were wrong. The question was whether the owner of a taxi, which looked like a taxi, could drive it for a private purpose when not licensed as a taxi driver.

Summary: Held, allowing the appeal, that DJ were wrong to dismiss the information. The taxi could not lawfully be driven in the way described. Following Lord Parker, C.J. at p.31 of Yates v Gates, an offence is committed in terms of s. 46 whenever a licensed taxi is driven by someone who is unlicensed. The driver's intention is irrelevant.

Judge: Tuckey, J.; Rose, L.J.

Counsel: For DBC: R Merritt.

Solicitor: For DBC: Darlington BC Solicitor.

Legislation Cited

Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 46
..............................................................

Benson v Boyce
(DC) Divisional Court
20 January 1997

[1997] R.T.R. 226
Independent, February 24, 1997 (C.S.)

Summary

Subject: Criminal law

Road traffic offences; private hire minibus; driving without licence

Abstract: B appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for driving a private hire minibus within a controlled district, contrary to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s. 46(1)(b). B contended that the vehicle was not being used for private hire when he carried his employer's son and eight of his friends as passengers to a neighbouring controlled area, and therefore the offence was not made out.
Summary:

Held, dismissing the appeal, that the definition of a private hire vehicle in s. 80(1) of the 1976 Act referred to characteristic and not present use and, therefore, applied to all driving of a licensed private hire vehicle, whether for hire or otherwise, within a controlled area. The 1976 Act was similar to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 38 and s. 46 which referred specifically to hackney carriages, Hawkins v Edwards [1901] 2 K.B. 169 and Yates v Gates [1970] 2 Q.B. 27 considered.

Judge: Mance, J.; Kennedy, L.J.

Counsel: For the appellant: Brian Cummings. For the respondent: John Horan

Solicitor: For the appellant: HFT Gough & Co (Whitehaven). For the respondent: Council Legal Services (Whitehaven)

Cases Cited

Hawkins v Edwards, [1901] 2 K.B. 169 (KBD)
Yates v Gates, [1970] 2 Q.B. 27; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 593; [1970] 1 All E.R. 754; [1970] R.T.R. 135; 68 L.G.R. 250; (1970) 114 S.J. 93 (QBD)

Legislation Cited

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s. 46(1)

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s. 80(1)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 38
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 46

Case Comments

Licensing; Road traffic offences; Taxis. Nature and use of "private hire vehicle". J. Crim. L. 1998, 62(3), 200-202