Ambassador Cars Ltd., R (on the application of) v Central Criminal Court

On an application for permission to seek judicial review of a refusal to state a case, the High Court will not reassess factual findings or the merits of a licensing sanction. Permission requires an arguable error of law. A private hire operator could not rely on a past practice of further inspections to establish a legitimate expectation where the underlying conduct was unlawful and written warnings existed. The reviewing court could respect the regulator’s expertise and recommendation, while independently recognising that the Crown Court had conducted a fresh hearing and reached its own conclusion on the appropriate sanction. Regulation 11 required the prescribed booking particulars to be recorded no later than the allocation of the driver to the booking, rather than when the passenger entered the vehicle.

Ambassador Cars Limited operated private hire vehicles under a licence issued by the Public Carriage Office. Following inspections revealing defective records, the licence was revoked for non-compliance with regulations 11 to 13 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) (Operators' Licences) Regulations 2000.

The claimant’s appeal to the magistrates’ court failed, and its further appeal to the Central Criminal Court was dismissed by a majority. The Crown Court refused to state a case, treating the proposed questions as factual, irrelevant or frivolous. The claimant sought permission to challenge that refusal, alleging errors concerning regulation 11, legitimate expectation, relevant considerations, proportionality and the weight given to the Public Carriage Office’s recommendation.

1. Permission refused. The application was hopeless. The relevant question was whether there was an arguable error of law, not whether the High Court would have reached the same factual or regulatory conclusion.
2. The claimant’s construction of regulation 11 was untenable. The booking particulars had to be recorded no later than allocation of the driver to the job, and the booking record began when the driver proceeded to the collection point. Requiring recording only when the passenger was on board would undermine the booking system and the public-protection purpose of the Regulations (paras [7]–[12], [25]–[28]).
3. The Crown Court was entitled to respect the Public Carriage Office’s expertise and to regard its report as fair and relevant. The absence of express consideration of prosecution or suspension did not establish an error of law. The Crown Court had conducted a fresh hearing and was entitled, on the evidence, to conclude that revocation was necessary to secure compliance (paras [15]–[17], [23]–[24], [30]).
4. No legitimate expectation arose from the previous practice of further inspections. The past practice concerned continued unlawful non-compliance, and the Crown Court was entitled to find that any expectation was not legitimate. The claimant’s alternative argument based on fairness or failure to consider the history was also untenable because the Crown Court had considered that history, including written warnings. The reasoning in R v Dinev and Others, ex parte City of Westminster Council (CO/1096/2000) was correctly applied (paras [18]–[22], [29]).
5. The Crown Court was entitled to find the application to state a case frivolous in the statutory sense of futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic, as explained in R v Mildenhall Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Forest Heath District Council [1997] 161 JP 401 (paras [4], [25]–[26]). A stay was granted for fourteen days to permit any application to the Court of Appeal. Costs relating to the acknowledgment of service were to be agreed or assessed.

The application arose from the claimant’s unsuccessful appeal to the magistrates’ court and subsequent unsuccessful appeal to the Central Criminal Court. The Central Criminal Court refused to state a case. The High Court refused permission for judicial review, but granted a fourteen-day stay to facilitate a possible application to the Court of Appeal.