The court's decision is now at http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing...with-cyclists/
From this:|
...it is, in my judgment, appropriate to grant the interim declaration sought by Mr Chamberlain subject to the additional wording by way of clarification requested by Ms Demetriou QC and agreed by Mr Chamberlain viz. “The indemnity given in respect of fines and other liabilities incurred as a result of contravention of legislation governing the use of bus lanes in the Addison Lee Driver Notice of 14 April 2012 (and repeated subsequently) is void and unenforceable as respects contraventions of that legislation occurring after 14 April 2012. However, any decision of the Defendants, taken in a particular case after a fine has been imposed or other liability incurred for contravention of the legislation governing the use of bus lanes, to discharge, or reimburse any person in respect of such a fine or liability, would be lawful.” ... This was subsequently confirmed in the undertaking proffered by Ms Demetriou QC on behalf of the defendants being in the following terms: “The Respondents will not communicate to any person, in advance of a fine or liability being incurred by such person for contravention of legislation governing the use of bus lanes on or after 25 April 2012, that they will discharge or reimburse such fine or liability whether pursuant to the indemnity contained in the Addison Lee Driver Notice of 14 April 2012 or otherwise.” |
The court's decision is really then that they should not, in advance of an offence, offer to indemnify them against this offence. Should they wish to pay fines relating to an offence, they are allowed to do so.
Addison Lee are not legally allowed to use bus lanes and would incur fines relating to this should they enter them for a reason other than pre-arranged pick-up or a set-down of a passenger. This has not changed. The court did not go into detail of the judicial review relating to allowing PHVs to use bus lanes but it has recommended that this be expedited to reach a decision before the Olympics. UPDATE: The judge stated it is "more likely than not TfL would succeed" in this judicial review.Further, from the hearing:
| 59. As stated above, the defendants accept or at least do not dispute that, on the face of the legislation, it is an offence for a PHV driver to drive in a bus lane marked as available for use by taxis. Any PHV driver who does so would, on the face of the legislation, commit a criminal offence contrary to s. 8 of the 1984 Act. |
| 60. Anyone who does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence intending to encourage or assist its commission himself commits an offence pursuant to s. 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, unless he can avail himself of the defence of “acting reasonably” pursuant to s. 50 of that Act. |
| 60-61: “While there may be nothing untoward in one man agreeing to pay another’s fine after the offence is committed, it seemed to me that an agreement to indemnify a man against any fines he might incur in the future if he pursued a certain course of conduct was open to the gravest of objections. Both counsel agree that there is no decided authority on this point and this does not surprise me, because it seems to me almost self-evident. |
(Emphasis mine)
UPDATE: The court found:
|
95. For all these reasons, it is my conclusion that it is both necessary and just and convenient to grant the injunction sought by TfL in the form sought ie until determination by the Administrative Court of the judicial review proceedings in claim CO10424/2011 or further order, an injunction restraining the defendants from causing, encouraging or assisting any private hire vehicle driver to use bus lanes marked for use by taxis during the hours when restrictions apply, save to pick up or set down passengers subject to the cross-undertaking by TfL as set out above. I will also grant the interim declaration as set out above, accept the undertakings proffered by the defendants and make an order that the judicial review proceedings be expedited. |
To clarify; TfL's injunction was successful. The only part that failed was the request for Griffin to withdraw original letter. This is the part Addison Lee released.