National Transport Authority v Beakhurst

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barr
• Judgment Date: 17 June 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IEHC 301
• Date: 17 June 2020
• Docket Number: [Record No. 2019/1107 SS]
• Court: High Court

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 52 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1961

BETWEEN

NATIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

PROSECUTOR

AND

ERNEST BEAKHURST

DEFENDANT

[2020] IEHC 301

Barr J.

[Record No. 2019/1107 SS]

THE HIGH COURT

Admissible evidence – Taxi Regulation Act 2013 s. 22(4) – Questions of law – District Court judge raising questions of law for determination by the High Court – Whether there was adequate admissible evidence before the District Court judge tendered by the prosecutor to prove the offence had been committed by the accused

Facts: The District Court judge, in the course of a prosecution against the defendant, Mr E Beakhurst, being the owner of a taxi, raised the following questions of law for determination by the High Court: “(i) Was there adequate admissible evidence before me tendered by the prosecutor to prove the offence had been committed by the accused? (ii) Is the accused entitled to raise a defence that the vehicle of which he was the registered owner was being used without his permission or knowledge in the context of s. 22(4) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 as amended?” The prosecutor, National Transport Authority, maintained that the offence provided for under s. 22(4) is one of strict liability, which does not require it to prove knowledge on the part of the owner in respect of the use of the vehicle by the unlicensed driver. The defendant submitted that similar to the cases concerning the offence of possession of contraband substances, the prosecution must establish some knowledge or awareness on the part of the owner, as part of the actus reus of the offence provided for under s. 22(4).

Held by Barr J that he would answer the questions raised by the District Court judge as follows: (i) as the District Court judge had convicted Mr D Beakhurst of an offence contrary to s. 22(4) in respect of the carrying out of the activity prohibited by s. 22(2) at the relevant time and place and if the judge was satisfied that the prosecutor had established ownership of the vehicle by the accused, there was adequate admissible evidence before the District Court judge to prove that the offence had been committed by the accused; (ii) it was not sufficient for the defendant to establish a defence by proving that the vehicle was being used at the relevant time and place without his permission or knowledge and the defendant must go further and satisfy the trial judge, on the balance of probabilities, that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the acts which constituted a breach of the statutory regulations.

Questions answered.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Barr delivered electronically on the 17th day of June, 2020

Introduction

1 The central issue in this case can be summarised in the following way: Section 22(2) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 (as amended) prohibits a person, who is not the holder of a Public Service Vehicle licence for a particular vehicle, driving that vehicle for hire or reward in a public place. Section 22(4) provides that where a person drives a small public service vehicle in breach of the provisions of s.22 (2), they commit an offence and the owner of the vehicle is also criminally liable.

2 The prosecutor maintains that the offence provided for under s.22(4) is one of strict liability, which does not require it to prove knowledge on the part of the owner in respect of the use of the vehicle by the unlicensed driver.

3 The defendant submits that similar to the cases concerning the offence of possession of contraband substances, the prosecution must establish some knowledge or awareness on the part of the owner, as part of the actus reus of the offence provided for under s.22(4).

Questions raised by the learned District Court Judge.

4 In the course of a prosecution against the defendant, being the owner of a taxi, the learned District Court judge raised the following questions of law for determination by the High Court:

“(i) Was there adequate admissible evidence before me tendered by the prosecutor to prove the offence had been committed by the accused?

(ii) Is the accused entitled to raise a defence that the vehicle of which he was the registered owner was being used without his permission or knowledge in the context of s.22(4) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 as amended?”

The statutory offences.

5 Section 22(2) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 (as amended) (hereinafter ‘the Act’) provides as follows:

“(2) A person shall not drive or use a mechanically vehicle to which this section applies in a public place for the carriage of persons for hire or reward unless –

(a) The vehicle is-

(i) A small public service vehicle licensed under licensing regulations, and

(ii) licensed to be operated or driven in that place,

and

(b) The person holds a licence to drive a small public service vehicle of the category that he or she is driving or using.”

6 Section 22(4) of the Act is in the following terms:

“(4) A person who contravenes –

(a) Subparagraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2), or

(b) Paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3),

commits an offence and, if that person is not the owner of the vehicle, such owner commits an offence, in respect of each such contravention and each is liable in respect of each such contravention on a summary conviction to a class A fine.”

Evidence proved or admitted in the District Court.

7 The following is a very brief summary of the relevant evidence at the District Court prosecution which was brought against one David Beakhurst, being the driver of the taxi at the relevant time, who it was alleged did not hold a PSV licence to operate the taxi at the relevant time and place. It appears that at the hearing it was intimated that the same evidence would be tendered against the defendant, who was the owner of the relevant vehicle and who was the holder of a valid PSV licence for that vehicle.

8 At approximately 23.58 hours on the evening of Saturday 12th August, 2017, one of the prosecutor's compliance officers, a Mr. Carey, was conducting compliance checks at an appointed taxi stand on Baggot Street Upper, Dublin 4, a public place. He observed the defendant's taxi standing at the taxi stand with the roof sign illuminated and with the words “For Hire” showing on the taxi meter. On checking the relevant database, Mr. Carey noticed that the driver sitting in the vehicle did not look like the person whose photograph appeared in the database as being the licence holder.

9 Mr. Carey approached the vehicle and identified himself to the driver. He demanded production of the large driver identification card, which displayed the name of the accused, and gave the PSV driver licence number that had been issued to him. Mr. Carey then suspected that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid PSV licence to drive the particular vehicle. He cautioned the driver, who identified himself as David Beakhurst, born on 7th May, 1968.

10 Mr. David Beakhurst told Mr. Carey that he was waiting to collect his father, who had been in town celebrating his birthday in a number of pubs and he believed that his father was then in Searsons Public House, which was adjacent to the taxi rank.

11 Mr. Carey then invited Mr. David Beakhurst to telephone his father so that he could verify his account. Mr. David Beakhurst made a telephone call and afterwards stated to Mr. Carey that his father was no longer at Searsons pub and that he had moved to another pub.

12 Mr. Carey then proceeded to conduct an interview with Mr. David Beakhurst at the scene, which he noted in his notebook. In the course of that interview Mr. David Beakhurst stated that he did not know that the roof sign was illuminated. He stated that he thought that it always lit up. He stated that he was due to pick up his father, who was in Searsons pub, but he was not there any longer. He was asked as to why he had not removed the roof sign if he was not operating for hire or reward, to which he answered that it was always on and he left it on.

13 Mr. David Beakhurst was asked when he had got into the vehicle, to which he replied that he had got into the vehicle twenty minutes earlier. When asked why he was operating the vehicle for carriage of persons for hire or reward without a valid small public service vehicle driver licence, he stated that he was not working for hire. When asked as to how he got possession of the vehicle, he stated that he just jumped into the car, as it was the first car outside the house. Mr. David Beakhurst signed the memorandum of interview, which had been recorded in Mr. Carey's notebook.

14 It appears to be common case that Mr. David Beakhurst did not hold a PSV licence at the relevant time.

15 On 15th August, 2017, the accused voluntarily attended at the NCT offices at North Point, Ballymun, Dublin for an interview with Mr. Carey. In the course of that interview, he stated that he had not allowed anyone to operate his taxi on 12th August, 2017 for the carriage of persons for hire or reward. He stated that he had left his car outside his house. It had been parked there from twelve midday. He stated that he had gone into town with friends to celebrate his birthday. They had gone to several different pubs as part of a pub crawl, which he did on his birthdays. He stated that he had asked several times to be picked up by his wife. When asked as to whether he had received a telephone call from Mr. David Beakhurst on the night in question, he stated that he may have done, he did not know because he had received a number of telephone calls, but he did not answer them. He stated that he first found out that Mr. David Beakhurst was driving his taxi at about 02.30 hours. They had managed to get another taxi to St. James's Hospital because there was an accident. He stated that his large identification card was on the front dashboard of his taxi. He had left it lying...