Sanction for Misleading Prices
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300608 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
TheJournal of
Criminal
Law
any payment being requested, paid or received. Both
the
magistrates'
court and
the
Divisional Court held
that
the
vehicle came within
the
term private hire vehicle as defined by s 80 of
the
1976 Act, which
relates to the nature and construction of the vehicle and
not
to
the
nature of the activity in which it is involved in the controlled district at
the time. The driver's conviction was, therefore, upheld, even
though
he
was driving on a 'social' occasion.
When
once
it
is determined that the
words in s 80 'provided for hire' relate exclusively to
the
vehicle itself,
the question of
how
it is being used on any particular occasion becomes
irrelevant.
It
follows
that
the
prosecution is
never
required, for
the
purpose of identifying the status of
the
vehicle, to concern itself with
the
actual hiring of
the
vehicle on any particular occasion. Liability
under
s 46( 1) arises from unlicensed driving of
that
sort of vehicle in
the
controlled district, for
whatever
purpose
and
under
whatever
terms.
2. Upon
the
second, 'less straightforward' question posed in the case
stated, namely
whether
the
prosecution
had
established sufficient
knowledge to prove that
the
driver
had
'knowingly' contravened
the
section, the justices held
that
he
knew
that
he held
no
private hire
vehicle driver's licence and
that
the
vehicle was a plated private hire
vehicle which was normally used as such. The case stated was silent
upon
the
question
whether
he
knew
that
he was driving in a controlled
district;
but
it stated
the
justices' finding of fact
that
he did
not
know
that
when
driving a private hire vehicle
'in
aprivate capacity' for friends
without payment to
any
person
that
this activity might bring
him
within
the requirements of
the
1976 Act. The court's decision was that, if a
person drives a plated private hire vehicle without
the
relevant licence
in a controlled district and is aware of these facts, it is immaterial
that
he
erroneously believed
that
he was
not
guilty of
an
offence because the
vehicle was
not
being hired at
the
time. The court held
that
the
justices
were in error in trying to distinguish
Benson
v
Boyes
(above)
on
the
ground
that
in
that
case
the
Divisional Court was
not
called
on
to decide
the
significance of
the
word 'knowingly'
in
relation to
the
offence. The
Divisional Court decided to remit
the
instant case to
the
magistrates for
them
to determine
whether
the
driver
knew
that
he was driving in a
controlled district
and
to dismiss
the
information if they
were
less
than
sure that he had this knowledge.
Sanction for Misleading Prices
Thomson
Tour
Operations
Ltd v
Birch
(1999) 163
lP
465
Atourist booked aholiday with
the
appellant company on
the
basis
of the contents of their brochure, which contained a'Fair Trading
Charter', to
the
effect
that
if
the
price of
the
holiday was reduced after
the booking, the tourist would be charged only
the
reduced price,
when
he came to pay
the
balance due. The tourist on this occasion was
informed by a friend
that
he had been offered
the
same holiday as the
522
To continue reading
Request your trial