Interpretations of Law

The argument you are advancing is that argued (unsuccessfully) by Berwick Borough Taxi Association (represented by the National Private Hire Association) in the Newcastle v Berwick High Court case last year.

If you read the judgment (again), you will see that the judge wholly rejected that argument.

He expressly stated: (i) a hackney carriage is not a private hire vehicle; (ii) refused to distinguish (in the legal sense) or to say that the decision in Brentwood v Gladen was wrong; (iii) confirmed a hackney carriage could be worked anywhere in the country, without the owner or driver committing any offence; and (iv) declared that councils had a duty to ensure, so far as possible, that the vehicles they license should not be “exclusively or predominantly” used “remotely” from the area of the council that licences them, because it is difficult (and could be impossible) for such a council to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities.

Whilst parliament enacts legislation, it must be remembered that the courts are responsible for interpreting the law. Anyone who relies solely on what an “Act of Parliament” says, does so at their peril, because it might well have been “interpreted” differently by the courts. Like it or not, the opinion of that judge or those judges count; and ours do not!

Possibly Related Posts:

• Comment of The Week.(more unions)
• Northumberland Consultation on Draft Policy
• Comment of The WeeK
• Taxi Licensing Officer Wanted
• Name and Shame?