The status of private land adjacent to a street has fallen under High Court scrutiny. In a sign-post ruling, the court has held that a station forecourt, although privately owned by Railtrack, is a “street” in the eyes of the law.
The court ruled that a magistrate erred in dismissing prosecutions brought against two taxi drivers accused of plying for hire on a public street while they were based at the station forecourt at Eastbourne.
The magistrate held that the forecourt could not be classed as a “street” within the provisions of the Act under which the prosecutions were brought.
However, in allowing an appeal by Eastbourne Council against that decision, Pill LJ held that the cabbies were wrongly cleared.
He said that while it was not disputed that the station forecourt was owned by Railtrack and was therefore private property, it was adjacent to a “street”.
“As a matter of language, I have no difficulty in construing the expression “plying for hire in any street” as covering a situation in which the vehicle is in a prominent position just off the street and the public are in numbers on the street,” said the judge.
He said that the taxi rank was situated immediately adjacent to a public street in what was plainly a busy part of Eastbourne where many commercial premises were situated and pedestrian traffic was high.
“A vehicle on the rank is plainly likely to attract custom from members of the public using the adjoining street in a busy part of the town. The respondents were plying for hire in a street within the meaning of the Act,” he said.
Eastbourne Borough Council v Charles William Stirling and another Queen’s Bench Division (Pill LJ and Bell J) 31 October 2000.
Nicholas Hall (instructed by the solicitor to Eastbourne Borough Council) appeared for the appellant; James King-Smith (instructed by Mayo & Perkins, of Eastbourne) appeared for the respondents.
PLS News 1/11/00
