Beaumont and Another v Ferrer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Longmore,Lord Justice Beatson,Lord Justice Moore-Bick |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 768 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B3/2014/2872 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 19 July 2016 |
[2016] EWCA Civ 768
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Right Hounourable Lord Justice Moore-Bick
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Longmore
and
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Beatson
Case No: B3/2014/2872
Mr Marc Willems QC (instructed by Potter Rees Dolan) for the Appellants
Ms Suzanne Chalmers (instructed by Blake Turner) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 29 th June 2016
Approved Judgment
The appeal is about six young men in Salford deciding to "jump" a taxi without paying the fare. Three of them succeeded but two others could not get out of the taxi at the same time and when they did they sadly sustained very serious injuries. The trial was on liability only. I gratefully adopt the judge's account of the facts.
The Facts
The Defendant, David Ferrer, aged 59, was at the material time a very experienced, self-employed licensed taxi driver in Salford, who received work from Swan Taxis. He owned and drove a Nissan Serena minivan. The vehicle was not powerful and had a relatively poor performance. There were three rows of seats inside this minicab which I will call "the taxi". The middle and back rows were each capable of accommodating three passengers, although the middle row was divided. There was one rear sliding door on each side, which did not extend to the rear row of seats. The seat backs of the middle seats could be tipped forward and the seats lifted to allow anyone sitting on the back seats to leave the vehicle. The mechanism for the seats was not easily found and was difficult to access for anyone sitting in the back seats. If the minicab was fully occupied, space was restricted and there was limited head room between the tops of the seats and the roof. Mr Ferrer did not lock the doors when passengers were being conveyed.
In the early evening of 27 July 2009 Mr Ferrer received a call from his control room, asking him to collect a fare from 109 Tootal Drive, Salford. The booking had been made from the house of the parents of Connor Emery, then aged 11. Mr Ferrer arrived at 109 Tootal Drive, and found six youths waiting for him at the bus stop across the road. They were the first claimant, Joseph Beaumont, then aged 17, the second claimant, Lewis O'Neill, also then aged 17, Connor Emery, Robert Malloy, aged 13, Bradley Smith, aged 14 and Luke Bullcock, aged 17. Mr Ferrer was asked to take the youths to "Urbis", in Manchester city centre.
The six youths had already agreed among themselves that no one of them would pay the eventual taxi fare. Indeed that appeared to be the main point of the excursion into Manchester. They would, as they put it in their street patois, 'jump the taxi', that is, take an appropriate opportunity at or near their destination to get out of the taxi and make off without paying the fare. It was Bradley Smith who proposed that the group should 'jump the taxi' into Manchester. Luke Bullcock said in his police interview: '… it was around 8 o'clock that Lewis [O'Neill], Joe [Joseph Beaumont] and Brad [Bradley Smith] came around and said do you fancy coming into town? We'll jump a taxi'. The whole group was present when the agreement was made.
When the taxi arrived Connor Emery got into the front passenger seat. Robert Malloy, Bradley Smith and Luke Bullcock got into the middle row, and the two Claimants got into the back seats. The taxi drove into Manchester, coming down Blackfriars Street towards the junction with Deansgate. At this point, Connor Emery, pursuant to the criminal joint enterprise, put his hand on the door handle, realising that the taxi was close to the destination and in preparation for the planned 'jump'. Mr Ferrer from his experience immediately appreciated that the youths almost certainly intended to 'jump' his taxi. Nonetheless he told the occupants that the fare for the journey was £10, and asked for payment. He did not proceed to the destination, 'Urbis' (a short distance away), but stopped near the traffic lights towards the end of Blackfriars Street, to let his passengers out of the taxi. The traffic lights were then on red. From CCTV stills and from witness evidence, the exact location of his halt on Blackfriars Street cannot certainly be stated. However, it is probable that he stopped in the line of traffic, somewhere along the area marked 'coach drop off', towards the front area marked for taxis, near the Renaissance Hotel.
When the taxi stopped, Bradley Smith straightaway took the lead in the criminal enterprise. From his central position in the middle row of the taxi he leaned over to open the nearside door and loudly shouted something to the effect of 'get out'. He, Robert Malloy and Luke Bullcock got out of the taxi, and took swiftly to their heels. Bradley Smith was shown on the CCTV turning and running from the crime scene. Three independent witnesses saw these youths exit the taxi, and each formed the (correct) impression from the manner of their departure that they were 'jumping' the taxi. Just before taking off, Bradley Smith had tried to release the seats of the middle row so as to facilitate the egress of the claimants in the back row, but he was unable to do so. It was likely that the taxi had started to move forwards as he made his unsuccessful attempt to allow his two companions to escape the taxi. Luke Bullcock's evidence was that, after he left the taxi, he closed the offside sliding door. As the first three youths were leaving the taxi, Beaumont was clambering over the seats of the middle rows, with the intention of exiting the taxi and joining his companions, and within seconds O'Neill had put his leg over the seat in front of him.
Mr Ferrer then drove off with the three remaining occupants of the taxi, namely the claimants and Connor Emery (still in the passenger front seat). He was questioned, both in his police interviews and in cross examination at the trial, why he had done so. He said he was in fear of being attacked and that he had panicked. The year before a group of youths had directed him to a cul de sac where he had been attacked and stabbed twice in his cab, suffering very serious injuries. In his police interview he said this:-
"I panicked. I think as I've said to you I've been stabbed. I nearly lost my life. It's like déjà vu. It's like all over again, it's happening again I didn't know what weapons they might have …
when I'm driving my vehicle and when I'm fearing for my life I am not going to start reasoning with them 'I wouldn't jump out here pal' …
all I wanted to do was take my vehicle and myself out of that area. The fastest, the safest way to do that was to drive it away …"
In the light of this the judge accepted that fear played some part in Mr Ferrer's decision to drive off, but said that other factors played a larger part. He was justifiably aggrieved and understandably angry that another group of youths was committing a criminal offence at his expense, namely evasion of a fare, and he wished to do something to impede the three youths left in the taxi from exiting and making off without payment. He believed, probably correctly, that if the offenders did take off, the police would have little interest in him as a victim of this dishonest offending. He did suggest in evidence that he was contemplating taking at least Connor Emery to the nearest police station, and he may well have had some such strategy in mind when he drove off.
In any event, Mr Ferrer pulled away sharply from a point on Blackfriars Road some distance back from the junction and turned the corner into Deansgate at no more than 20 m.p.h. All the experts agreed that Mr Ferrer took the turn at a speed that was close to the limit for the vehicle in question and greater than that which could safely be recommended. Mr Ferrer did not lose control. There were no tyre marks on the road suggesting that the vehicle skidded, and no independent witness observed any skidding. The judge held that there was no excessive acceleration.
As the taxi approached the corner, or was beginning the turn, Beaumont left the vehicle. He had been clambering over the middle seats intending to get out of the taxi as part of the criminal enterprise. The offside door was closed, and he had the clear choice to remain in the taxi at this point, re-seat himself, put on his seatbelt and to be carried with complete safety. Instead he chose to open the offside door and deliberately positioned himself to get out of the taxi even though it was now moving, albeit slowly. This was confirmed in particular by the evidence of Mr Thew, who was on the corner of Blackfriars Street and Deansgate, and had a good view of the offside of the taxi as it turned the corner relatively close to his position. His evidence was that as the vehicle began to turn the corner, the body of Joseph Beaumont, who was half in, half out of the taxi, shifted with the position of the vehicle so as to face the inside of the taxi. He then came out backwards and landed on his back, his head hitting the road. Mr Thew said: 'I cannot say whether it was a result of him stepping out or the motion of the vehicle that caused him to exit'. A Mr Taylor said in an agreed witness statement that Beaumont 'seemed to be trying to judge the right moment to get out", and then he fell out backwards. Mr Taylor said that he could not tell for sure whether Beaumont jumped or fell, but his impression was that 'he was trying to get out of the vehicle whilst it was moving'.
Neither of these witnesses had full appreciation of the context in which Beaumont had dangerously positioned himself at the door of the moving taxi, namely,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RO (by his litigation friend MI) v Freddy Gray
...[2002] 3 All ER 78, CAThe following additional cases were cited in argument or referred to in the skeleton arguments:Beaumont v Ferrer [2016] EWCA Civ 768; [2016] RTR 25, CAClark v Farley [2018] EWHC 1007 (QB); [2019] RTR 21Joyce v O’Brien [2013] EWCA Civ 546; [2014] 1 WLR 70, CALane v Holl......
-
Proprietor of Ashdown House School v. (1) JKL (2) MNP
...under the Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013 (SI2013/1036)). 142. Curiously, in Floe Telecom Ltd (in administration) v. Ofcom [2016] EWCA Civ 768 at [54] Sedley LJ said obiter that the Competition Appeals Tribunal was unlikely to be subject to the law of contempt on the basis that it......
-
John McHugh (Administrator of the Estate of Christine McHugh (Deceased) v Ophelia Okai-Koi and Another
...move off with Mrs McHugh on the bonnet. 20 I have been referred to two road traffic cases, McCracken v Smith [2015] EWCA Civ 380, and Beaumont v Ferrer [2016] EWCA Civ 768. I have found the analysis on causation in the judgment of Richards LJ in McCracken v Smith (supra) particularly helpfu......
-
Liliya Tsetvanova Against Christopher Walden
...informed and unreasonable, such as to constitute a novus actus interveniens: Clay v TUI UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1177; Beaumont v Ferrer [2016] RTR 25. 7 [17] The defender has no insurance which will respond to the pursuer’s claim against him. He is privately funding his defence of these proc......
-
Crime Doesn't Pay Criminal Enterprise And Negligence
...Case Beaumont & O'Neill v David Ferrer [2016] EWCA Civ 768 The It's often said that crime doesn't pay, but the question the English Court of Appeal had to consider here was whether the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio (that a claimant cannot seek a legal remedy if it arises from hi......
-
Summer 2016 Scots Law in Practice
...part of criminal enterprise, but in which the negligence of the defendant also played a part? Beaumont & O'Neill v David Ferrer [2016] EWCA Civ 768 The It's often said that crime doesn't pay, but the question the English Court of Appeal had to consider here was whether the maxim ex turp......
-
Crime Doesn't Pay Criminal Enterprise And Negligence
...are part of criminal enterprise, but in which the negligence of the defendant also played a part? Beaumont & O'Neill v David Ferrer[2016] EWCA Civ 768 The It's often said that crime doesn't pay, but the question the English Court of Appeal had to consider here was whether the maxim ex t......