Milton Keynes Council v Skyline Taxis and Private Hire Ltd & Anor

For the purposes of the private-hire-vehicle licensing regime, “operate” is a statutory term of art. It concerns making provision for inviting or accepting bookings, rather than providing the vehicle or the place where a particular booking is accepted.

Under sections 55A and 55B of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, operators may arrange for a separately licensed operator in another controlled district to provide the vehicle. The arrangement may be made and implemented through a shared computer system. It does not require a separate controlling mind or positive human acceptance of every booking. A booking is accepted in the relevant district if it is accepted as a booking subject to the second operator’s licence.

A no-case submission succeeds where the prosecution evidence leaves a real possibility that a lawful statutory arrangement existed. Costs against a public prosecutor under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 remain exceptional.

Milton Keynes Council prosecuted Skyline Taxis and Private Hire Ltd and its director for operating a private hire vehicle without a vehicle licence issued by the Council and with a driver not licensed by the Council.

The vehicle and driver were licensed by South Northamptonshire District Council. Skyline held operator licences in both districts and used a computerised booking system. The respondents contended that the booking had been arranged under section 55A of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 for Skyline’s South Northamptonshire operation to provide the vehicle.

A District Judge dismissed the charges as there being no case to answer. The Council appealed by way of case stated. The respondents cross-appealed the refusal of a prosecution-costs order. The central issues were whether the computerised process could constitute a section 55A arrangement and whether the Council’s conduct justified an order under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

1. Substantive appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that the prosecution evidence did not disprove a real possibility that Skyline’s Milton Keynes operation had arranged for its South Northamptonshire operation to provide the vehicle. The short computer-generated report was capable of supporting that conclusion.
2. “Operate” in this statutory context has the meaning given by section 80(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976: making provision in the course of business for inviting or accepting bookings. It does not mean the provision of the vehicle itself. The location of the customer, the pick-up, the contract or the particular acceptance is therefore not ordinarily determinative.
3. Section 55A(3) requires multiple licences held by the same legal entity to be treated as held by separate persons for the relevant purposes. That statutory fiction does not require the real-world operations to have separate controlling minds. A common computer system may manage the arrangement between the two deemed operators.
4. A section 55A arrangement may be established by an overarching arrangement under which the second operator agrees to carry out bookings when the first operator lacks an eligible and available vehicle. The second operator need not make a distinct positive human decision on each booking. The computer system could first implement the arrangement between the operators and then offer the job to a driver.
5. The phrase “accepted in that district” in section 55A(1)(b) concerns acceptance of the booking as one subject to the second operator’s licence. It does not require physical acceptance at premises or computer servers located within that district. This construction preserves the statutory “trinity” of operator, vehicle and driver licensing and accommodates modern computerised booking systems.
6. Costs cross-appeal dismissed. Under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, “unnecessary or improper” conduct is fact-sensitive. Applications against public prosecutors are rare and generally require bad faith or a clear and stark error, such that no reasonable prosecutor could have acted as it did. A prosecution’s failure, including dismissal for no case to answer, does not by itself satisfy that threshold. Pre-proceedings conduct is relevant, but the Council’s conduct fell well short of the required standard.
7. Mr Justice Gilbart agreed, emphasising that the computerised transfer did not reduce public protection because the driver and vehicle were properly licensed and relevant records were available to the licensing authorities.

• High Court (Administrative Court), Divisional Court: dismissed the Council’s appeal by way of case stated and dismissed the respondents’ cross-appeal concerning prosecution costs.
• Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Malcolm Dodds dismissed the charges as there being no case to answer and ordered payment of the respondents’ costs from central funds.