Arun District Council, R (on the application of) v Spooner

Whether a vehicle is a private hire vehicle depends on the statutory purpose of the hire, not merely on whether a passenger is carried on an individual occasion. The question is factual. Incidental carriage of an owner does not establish that the vehicle was provided for the purpose of carrying passengers where the principal purpose was transporting animals and no separate passenger charge was made. A charitable or non-profit activity may nevertheless be a business. Profit is assessed by reference to the activity and its receipts and expenses; the subsequent use of any surplus is irrelevant.

Arun District Council appealed by way of case stated against the magistrates’ dismissal of three informations brought against Derrick Gordon Spooner under section 46 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976. The informations alleged use, driving and operation of an unlicensed private hire vehicle.

Mr Spooner operated a pet ambulance. In almost all journeys only the animal was carried. Owners accompanied the animal only where required by the vet or in an emergency, without an additional charge. The magistrates held that the vehicle was not provided for hire for the purpose of carrying passengers and that Mr Spooner was not operating a business. The central issues were the proper construction of “private hire vehicle” and “operating”.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to dismiss the informations because the vehicle was not a private hire vehicle within section 80 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976.
2. The definition required the court to determine the purpose for which the vehicle was provided for hire. It did not ask whether a passenger happened to be carried on a particular occasion. The approach in Benson v Boyce [1997] RTR 226, namely that characteristic use rather than use on a specific occasion was relevant, provided useful guidance.
3. On the facts, the magistrates were entitled to find that the purpose of the hire was carriage of pets, not carriage of passengers. Relevant considerations included that no additional charge was made for an accompanying passenger, passengers were carried only exceptionally, and the overwhelming majority of journeys carried the pet alone.
4. The finding that Mr Spooner was not operating a business because he made no personal profit was erroneous. He operated a booking system, used a specially adapted vehicle and charged a fee. The activity generated a surplus after expenses. The fact that the surplus was donated to charity did not prevent the activity from being a business.
5. That error did not affect the result, because establishing that the vehicle was a private hire vehicle was essential to each information. The court answered the magistrates’ first two questions broadly in the affirmative and the third in the negative. It was unnecessary to determine the proposed distinction concerning St Albans District Council v Taylor [1991] RTR 400; [1991] Crim LR 852. The legal aid fund was ordered to be fully indemnified for the costs incurred.

1. Magistrates’ court: on 24 July 2006, dismissed three informations alleging offences concerning use, driving and operation of an unlicensed private hire vehicle.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and upheld the dismissal of the informations.