Taxi Driver Online

Just in case it has slipped the memory of those who don't have permits to ply for hire on railway property I have again taken the liberty of posting the Khan case.
..............................................

Khan v Evans
(DC) Divisional Court
c.1985


[1985] R.T.R. 33

Summary

Subject: Road traffic

Hackney carriage; ply for reward; railway

Abstract: A hackney carriage which is not authorised to ply for reward on the railway is guilty of an offence even if it only enters the station in response to being hailed while outside it. K was found guilty of an offence under the British Rail byelaws of plying for reward as a hackney carriage driver on the railway without the permission of an authorised person.

He had been hailed as he drove past the station and had driven in and picked up passengers there. K argued that he was not plying for reward on the railway because the contract had been concluded while he was outside the station.

Summary: Held, dismissing the appeal, that driving along with a "for hire " sign was an invitation to treat; the hailing by the prospective passenger indicated a desire to negotiate, as did K's pulling into the station; at this stage no offer capable of being accepted had been made, and K was plying for reward on the railway.

...................................................

The law on Picking up a pre booked fare at a Railway station.

Britain v ABC Cabs (Camberley)
(DC) Divisional Court
c.1981

[1981] R.T.R. 395

Summary

Subject: Road traffic

Abstract: The definition of vehicle licence in s. 80(1) of the 1976 Act means in relation to a hackney carriage a licence granted under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 37 to 45. D owned a hackney carriage licensed under the 1847 Act for a certain district. D was asked to collect a passenger from a railway station in another district.

D had no licence for that district and no private hire licence under s. 48 nor an operator's licence under s. 55 of the 1976 Act. The vehicle collected the passenger without parking at the station cab rank or plying for hire. D were charged with using a private hire vehicle in respect of which a vehicle licence was not in force contrary to s. 46(1)(a) and with operating an unlicensed private hire vehicle contrary to s. 46(c)(d) of the 1976 Act.

Summary: Held, dismissing the prosecutor's appeal that, (1) the vehicle was one in respect of which a licence was in force and the licence covered the collection of the passenger; (2) D had done no more than pick up the passenger and had not made provision for inviting or accepting bookings within the means of "operate" in s. 80 (1) of the 1976 Act.

Legislation Cited

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s. 45
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s. 46(1)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s. 48
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s. 80(1)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 37
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 45

History of the Case

Citations to the Case

Applied by
Dittah v DPP, (1993) 157 J.P. 1110; [1993] R.T.R. 356; [1993] Crim. L.R. 610; [1993] C.O.D. 349; (1993) 157 J.P.N. 652; (1993) 157 L.G. Rev. 928; Times, February 10, 1993; Independent, March 1, 1993 (C.S.) (DC)

Followed by
Adur DC v Fry, [1997] R.T.R. 257 (DC)

When Railway permits were first introduced in my neck of the woods this was the very first case I researched apertaining to Railway by-laws and plying for hire on Railway property.
.........................................................................................

Hulin v Cook
(DC) Divisional Court
c.1977

[1977] R.T.R. 345
76 L.G.R. 115
(1978) 75 L.S.G. 819
(1977) 121 S.J. 493

Summary: A hackney carriage driver plying for hire within the confines of railway property requires not only a licence issued by a local authority under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 but also a permission in accordance with the British Railways Board By-laws by-law 22(2)(c). D, a taxi-driver, held a licence from the City of Cardiff Council under the council's by-laws made in accordance with the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 68. The only stand specified by the by- laws was at Cardiff Central Station. D plied for hire at the station without permission in accordance with the British Railways Board By-laws 1965 by-law 22(2)(c).

On being charged with contravention of by-law 22(2)(c), he contended that the Public Health Act 1925 s. 76 exempted him from by-law 22(2)(c). The magistrate dismissed the information. On appeal by the prosecutor, held, allowing the appeal, that s. 76 conferred no new right. It merely extended the powers of licensing under the 1847 Act to the property of the railways. Accordingly, a licence under by-law 22(2)(c) was also required to ply for hire there, and the case would be remitted to the magistrate to continue the hearing.

Legislation Cited

Public Health Act 1925 s. 76
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 37
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 45
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 68
Transport Act 1962 s. 67