JD wrote:
I've tidied this up a little but its not perfect, when you scan documents the text more often than not gets corrupt.
Thanks to Man City fan for supplying this transcript.
I have one or two observations about this case of which we are all familiar but first I must say that I'm surprised that such action has never before been taken. We've had Newcastle council pussy footing about for what seems a lifetime over the same practice of private hire operators using hackney carriages licensed in other areas. The reason why Newcastle didn't take action against their own private hire licensed operators is because their legal advisers told them the activity was within the law quad Gladen.
In this particular case we shall have to wait and see how high the two protagonists are prepared to go in the legal sense. I've always said that the only way this piece of legislation will be laid to rest is if it is ruled upon by the House of Lords.
TDO was the first to dissect the Gladen judgment and since then we have revisited the case time and time again. The law is quite simple and all the House of Lords need ask themselves is "whether the 1976 act specifically prohibits London Hackney Carriages and provincial hackney carriages from doing something that they were legally entitled to do before the 1976 act became law. In other words do they need a private hire license when operating outside their own area?
It has already been established through Gladen that they don't require a P/H license to operate inside their own licensed area. In fact it was established that section 46 doesn't apply to licensed hackney carriages or London cabs but how wide does that go?
My personal opinion has always been that the first paragraph in section 46 of the LGMPA throws enough ambiguity on the meaning of controlled district in respect of hackney carriages to exempt them from this section. The Gladen case upheld my opinion and I suspect the opinion of many others. The overriding test as I have always pointed out is whether the Gladen Judgement applies to every controlled area? I don't see any specific reference in the 1976 act prohibiting provincial Hackney carriages or London cabs from undertaking private hires in a controlled private hire district, on the contrary I think the legislation although somewhat ambiguous can be said to be clear to the extent that it does not state that a London cab needs a private hire license to operate in a controlled district no matter where that controlled district might be.
There has always been one fly in the ointment in respect of out of area operation and that has been the Wilson case which I highlighted at the same time as Gladen. Should this go all the way to the top then one of these two cases will ultimately prevail.
There are interesting times ahead which make for interesting debate.
The opening comments of section 46.
(a) no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, "not being a hackney
carriage [or London Cab]" in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force,
shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act;
___________________________
A perfect assesment and I'm pleased judge Christopher Symonds QC agreed with it and not that which was offered up by others, however the person to take most heart from Symonds comments will surely be the convicted party in this Wrexham case. I hope that person and his representatives are reading this thread now.
Symonds rejected the argument put forward by Peter Maddox and the National Private hire association on behalf of Mr Richardson of Berwick hackney carriage association that the Gladen ruling only applied to hackney carriages being used locally and any person accepting bookings for a hackney carriage outside its license area could be prosecuted.
Vindication of ones opinion is always gratifying so I assume the convicted party in this wrexham case will be feeling highly gratified at Symons rejection of the Maddox argument.
I don't know how much it cost Mr Richardson and his colleagues but he could have saved both him and them a pretty penny in legal fees if he had listened to the sound judgement eminating from some on this website. It is not known if Mr Richardson reads TDO but either way I would like him to come on TDO and give us his opinion of this case and the reasoning and advice behind his decision to join with Newcastle when it was obvious to some of us that he would get nothing out of it only a wopping legal bill.
A reminder of what Symonds said.
Before turning to the legislation I should say a word about the other parties before me. Mr. George Richardson, the First Interested party, appeared on behalf of the Berwick Borough Taxi Association and was represented by Mr. Maddox.
The position of Mr. Richardson was largely aligned with Newcastle however he raised the different although, at least indirectly, related point, to which I have already alluded, namely whether a hackney carriage once licensed was entitled to accept pre-booked contracts for hire when those hirings were contracted outside the area in which the hackney carriage was licensed.
While, as may be apparent from my remarks in paragraph 45 above, I have considerable sympathy with the argument persuasively put by Mr. Maddox, I am not prepared to do other than follow Gladen which is a decision of this Court which I am certainly not prepared to say is obviously wrong.
Mr. Maddox sought to persuade me that since that case involved section 46(1)(d) the submission now advanced on behalf of Mr.Richardson was not fully argued. However it is clear from the judgment in that case that the Court considered section 46(1)(d) and (e) and expressed its conclusions and I do not think it is possible to distinguish it.
***So it follows that I am not prepared to hold that Newcastle can prosecute those using hackney carriages to fulfil pre-booked hirings in Newcastle Upon Tyne albeit that their hackney carriage licence is obtained from a local authority remote from Newcastle.***
The court of appeal will put this issue to bed once and for all but I hope there is some room for a peripheral argument relating to Symonds logic that councils can somehow restrict licenses by postal code both under existing taxi and European legislation.
In part there is a sweet smell of justice in the air this Sunday morning but I'm not sure whether the prevailing wind carries it as far as the north east.
Looking forward to the next joust in the court of appeal.
Regards
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
