Dusty Bin wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
captain cab wrote:
There's been so many cases over the years, I don't find it strange dusty and brummie seem so confused.
Brummie ain't confused!!
The case Brum licensing invariably use and which IMO is the correct way to prosecute under the TPC 1847 for plying for hire without a Hackney Carriage licence is Nottingham City Council -v- Woodings, 22 February 1993 Queen's Bench Division.
Please read so that you ain't confused!!
So when I asked you in another thread why the facts of Woodings seemed to conflict with what you claimed was the evidence required for a prosecution, why did you ignore me?
I'll bump the thread and give you another chance
I had not seen your reply until a few minutes ago.
I have now replied.
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17207
And as to the fact of the Woodings case, you state them correctly in the above thread.
But the whole prosecution of Woodings is based on the correct interpretation of the sections of the TPC 1847 that were used in the prosecution.
Forget prosecuting for plying for hire and prosecute under those sections of the TPC 1847 as in Woodings and there will be far more successful prosecutions.
It's a very simple concept to grasp when prosecutions are done under Woodings and that's why Brum licensing now use it.
Forget what Woodings and the Nottingham licensing officer said to one another and concentrate on the wordings of the sections of the TPC 1847 and the transgression/s that Woodings committed.
It is as simple as that and the law or the interpretation of it does not have to be as complicated as some in the judiciary might wish, want or construe it to be.
Login
Register
FAQ
