Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Fidler & Ors

A vehicle licensed as a hackney carriage remains within the statutory exemption from the definition of a private hire vehicle wherever it is licensed. The exemption in section 80(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 therefore applies to a hackney carriage licensed by another local authority. The exemption must also be read into the references to a private hire vehicle in section 46(1)(d) and (e). A vehicle licensed as a hackney carriage may consequently be used for pre-booked private hire without a private hire vehicle licence, although it may not stand or ply for hire outside its licensing area without the appropriate licence under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council appealed against preliminary rulings by Deputy District Judge Mary Hayes, sitting in the magistrates’ court, dismissing charges arising from the use in Stockton-on-Tees of two vehicles licensed as hackney carriages by Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council.

The drivers were charged under section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with standing for hire without a local licence. The operator was charged under section 46(1)(e) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 with operating vehicles as private hire vehicles without the requisite vehicle and driver licences. The central questions were whether the vehicles remained hackney carriages outside their licensing area and whether their use for pre-booked private hire engaged section 46(1)(e).

1. Section 45 offences. A hackney carriage licensed by one local authority may not stand or ply for hire outside the area for which it is licensed unless licensed by the authority for that area. Whether the conduct amounted to standing or plying for hire, and whether the car park was a street, remained factual questions. The drivers’ acquittals nevertheless stood because the prosecution did not seek a further hearing.
2. Meaning of hackney carriage. Following Britain v ABC Cabs (Camberley) Ltd [1981] RTR 395, the words “hackney carriage” in section 80(1) mean a hackney carriage wherever licensed. The exemption is not confined to vehicles licensed by the authority enforcing the 1976 Act.
3. Application to section 46(1)(d) and (e). Following Brentwood Borough Council v Gladen [2004] EWHC 2500 (Admin), [2005] RTR 152, the references to “private hire vehicle” in section 46(1)(d) and (e) are governed by the section 80(1) definition, including the hackney carriage exemption. The reasoning is reinforced by sections 48(1)(a)(ii) and 67(1).
4. The combination of those conclusions meant that the operator had not committed the section 46(1)(e) offences. The approach in Wilson was rejected insofar as inconsistent with that analysis, and the contrary decision in Wrexham County Borough Council v Whalley and Higgins was held to be wrong. The operator’s acquittal stood.
5. Langstaff J agreed. He noted that local regulatory policy could not displace the statutory language and that any resulting tension was a matter for Parliament.

High Court (Administrative Court): On a case stated from the magistrates’ court, the court answered the first question “No” and the second “Yes”. The acquittals of the operator and drivers stood, with no remittal for further proceedings against the drivers.