A Modest Amendment to the Law Relating to the Licensing of Taxi Drivers

Outside London the licensing of taxi drivers is a matter for local authorities. They must follow the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. No person may be licensed as a private hire car (mini-cab) driver or as a hackney carriage driver unless the licensing authority is satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence (see sections 51 and 59).


It is in the public interest, and in the interest of the taxi trade, that taxi drivers will not take advantage of their passengers, abuse them or assault them. Many a parent of a teenager out late at night will give the instruction to “Take a taxi”. It would be pointless to do so unless taxis afforded a safe and reliable form of transport. It is thus vital that licensing authorities have power to act when a taxi driver ceases to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Section 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 gives licensing authorities a wide power to revoke, suspend or refuse to renew taxi drivers’ licences. This power arises if the driver has been convicted of one of a range of offences involving dishonesty, indecency, violence, or the conduct of his business as a taxi driver. It also arises for any other reasonable cause.


It is open to a criminal court before whom a taxi driver appears charged with a serious offence to impose bail conditions which would prevent him from acting as a taxi driver, but in the author’s experience not only is this a rare occurrence, it is difficult for licensing authorities to persuade prosecuting authorities to make appropriate applications to the court. Licensing authorities are then left to use their powers under the 1976 Act. The effectiveness of those powers was limited.


A person aggrieved by a decision of a licensing authority to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew his licence could appeal to a Magistrates’ Court (section 61(3) of the 1976 Act), and thereafter to the Crown Court (section 301 Public Health Act 1936). Section 77 of the 1976 Act provides that, so long as the person could have lawfully continued to be a taxi driver but for the decision to revoke, suspend or refuse to renew his licence, he may continue as a taxi driver until his time for appealing has expired, or, if he appeals, his appeal is finally concluded. In practice, this has meant that a taxi driver who continues to hold a driving licence can continue in business for some months after the licensing authority has decided that he should no longer be a taxi driver.


There have been occasions when a licensing authority has been most concerned at the prospect of a taxi driver continuing to drive after it has decided to revoke or suspend his licence. Where the allegation is that the taxi driver has committed a serious criminal offence, the criminal courts may have dealt with the matter by remanding the defendant in custody.


Where, however, the defendant taxi driver was on bail, or where the evidence was insufficient to justify continuing the prosecution, but it was sufficient to justify revoking the taxi driver’s licence, the licensing authority was faced with the prospect of a thoroughly unsuitable person acting as a taxi driver for months to come.


It may have been possible for a local authority to exercise its powers under s. 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and apply to the High Court for an injunction to restrain the taxi driver from working as a taxi driver. There seems to be no recorded instance of this having happened. The author did once suggest this course of action to prevent a paedophile from continuing to work as a taxi driver after he abducted, and together with another, indecently assaulted a teenage girl who was his passenger. No action was, in the event, begun as the taxi driver felt it wise to give up that occupation.


Parliament has now, by section 52 of the Road Safety Act 2006 (which came into force on 6 April 2007), made provision for a licensing authority to direct that the suspension or revocation of a taxi driver’s licence is to be of immediate effect. The lodging of an appeal will not affect the suspension or revocation of the licence. The licensing authority is limited in its use of this power to occasions when the interests of public safety require it.


Quite why this provision is included in the Road Safety Act 2006, and not a Local Government Bill, is not clear. The Road Safety Act started life as a private member’s bill introduced in the House of Lords. What is now section 52 was introduced by the Secretary of State for Transport when the bill was on its passage through the Commons. Was it felt that there was a pressing need for this provision to become law as soon as possible, or is just another example of making lawyers look in unlikely places to find changes in the law?


Simon Birks