Back in 1959, Uxbridge Magistrates heard a
case in which a private hire driver, Mr. Cogley, was alleged to have been
“plying for hire” in an unlicensed hackney carriage at what was then called
simply “London Airport” and is now Heathrow. The dusty report of the case – it
is often referred to as “the airport case” - tells us that London Airport has TWO terminals
– the North and the Central – and that Mr. Cogley’s car was equipped with a new-fangled
two-way radio that enabled him to be called to carry would-be passengers who
made a booking at a desk inside either terminal, and that there were
advertisements for the service in the terminal, and even free telephones that
enabled passengers to contact the booking desk. Uxbridge Magistrates found Mr
Cogley guilty – but the High Court took the opposite view.
Perhaps surprisingly, Mr. Cogley’s 56 year
old case remains the leading authority on what amounts to “plying for hire”
under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act. But then, that very Act is itself
is 145 years old!
In April 2015, Uxbridge Magistrates had to
consider the question all over again: this time with a driver who had been
parked on the departures forecourt of Heathrow T4. An officious policeman had
discovered his car to be there using the Uber app and came over to ask what he
was doing there. As a result, the unfortunate driver found himself facing a
charge which, if he were found guilty, would have cost him his livelihood –
because what ever penalty the court might impose, TfL will invariably revoke a
private hire driver’s licence is he is convicted of a “taxi offence” such as
plying for hire.
Thankfully, the magistrates on this occasion
took a sensible view and after hearing two hours of evidence and legal
argument, and deliberating for thirty minutes, not only acquitted my client,
but awarded him payment of his costs from Central Funds.
So what, in 2015, is “plying for hire” ?
These are the essential ingredients of the
offence:
·
The car must be ‘exhibited’ to
the potential hirers as being available to them – so the question of where the
car is parked is always an important one.
·
There must usually be
‘solicitation’ of passengers. This can be by advertisements on the which would
be visible to potential passengers, or could be by something the driver says or
does: if you stand outside your car gesturing towards it to possible
passengers, you will almost certainly be guilty. If you sit in it and do
nothing, you’ll be on safer ground.
·
Merely waiting for possible
hirings can be enough: but the prosecution must make the court sure that you
were waiting for bookings other than through the private hire office with which
you work.
Since this
case began, UBER has reached an agreement with Heathrow’s authorities to make
the airport a “dead zone” so that cars subscribed to the Uber app will not be
visible to potential passengers using UBER in the airport. But clearly in THIS case, the bench did not
accept the prosecution’s contention that by making the presence of his car at
the airport known through Uber, my client was committing the offence of Plying
for Hire. Perhaps, therefore, Uber threw in the towel too soon!
Magistrates
Court decisions are not biding on any other court so my client’s success this
week cannot be taken as a guarantee that others in a similar position would get
the same result. Had he been convicted, we would have asked the Divisional
Court to revisit “plying for hire” and a new “airport case” might have gone
into the books. Until it does, the extent of this offence will remain a murky
area of the law in which those accused might be well advised to seek expert
advice.
