The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) brought a private prosecution against Uber driver who was licensed as a private hire driver by Transport for London (TfL), claiming that he was plying for hire. The Taxi Association had employed two private detectives in what they claimed was a “sting” operation.
The basis for the sting was that one of them booked the driver through the app and then took a ride, while the other filmed the operation. The gravamen of the prosecution was that the ability to see a car on the app meant that the car was plying for hire.
The basis for the sting was that one of them booked the driver through the app and then took a ride, while the other filmed the operation. The gravamen of the prosecution was that the ability to see a car on the app meant that the car was plying for hire.
The defendant’s case was that driving in accordance with the Uber app is obviously not plying for hire.
The defendant’s legal team then requested the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to take over the prosecution and discontinue it.
This power is given to the CPS under section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It is very rarely exercised.
In this case, however, the CPS did decide to take over the prosecution and discontinue it. The prosecution was, therefore, nipped in the bud.
In this case, however, the CPS did decide to take over the prosecution and discontinue it. The prosecution was, therefore, nipped in the bud.
In light of the new evidence uncovered by the LCDC team, will the LTDA appeal this decision?
Or is this now the end of the drawn out case the LTDA had put all their hopes on while dismissing any action from other Taxi trade orgs?
Surely the Taxi trades powerful union’s legal teams (ho, ho, ho) will be all over this decision.
Surely the Taxi trades powerful union’s legal teams (ho, ho, ho) will be all over this decision.
After all, it’s been shown twice, in two different court cases, on two different continents that Uber’s operation is not legal under current London regulations.
Again, as in Cambridge, it was licensing barrister Philip Kolvin QC who acted for the Defendant, instructed by Woods Whur Solicitors.
In December 2016, Mayor Sadiq Khan appointed licensing barrister Phillip Kolvin QC as night time commissioner.
LBC recently accused the Mayor’s night time commissioner of having a conflict of interest, because he is representing drivers in a number of cases, where the company ‘Uber’ are picking up the bill.
Conservative MP and former Transport Minister Theresa Villiers says the London Mayor now needs to review the appointment.
She told LBC: "I have concerns about what I've heard bout Philip Kolvin's involvement in defending Uber drivers in court.
See article click link:
Source : Cornerstone Barristers and LBC Website.
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT: by LTR’s Sean Paul Day
On 3/07/2015 Uber admitted under oath that they played no part in the booking process between passenger and driver. The case is significant as Uber’s operational model is replicated around around the globe.
Correspondence was subsequently sent to The Mayor, Deputy Mayor with copies forwarded to TfL. The cover letter was later posted as an open letter in TAXILEAKS.
No doubt other trade organisations sent correspondence to TFL also.
THIS WAS 18 MONTHS AGO!
CITATION: City of Toronto v. Uber Canada Inc. et al., 2015 ONSC 3572 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-516288 DATE: 20150703
0 Response to "LTDA's Uber Driver Prosecution Thrown Out By CPS On Request Of Mayor's Night Time Commissioner."
Post a Comment