Summons for refusing to pay taxi fare (Take 2)

Gastropod77

Hi,
I hailed a MyTaxi to go to work in the morning and halfway through the journey I asked the driver to change course slightly. He then stopped the car and told me to get out. I did so and then he jumped out of the cab and grabbed me by the lapels shouting at me to pay the fare that had accrued. I refused and called the Guards.
The Guards arrived 45 minutes later and I made a complaint for assault against the driver and I still refused to pay after the Guard asked me to pay.

I recently received a summons to appear to the Criminal Court for being 'in contravention of Article 56 of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, 1963
Contrary to Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as mended by Section 7 of the Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Act 1967 provides the offence. Section 102 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended by Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 2006) provides the penalty.'

TheChizler

Had you a legitimate reason for not paying?

Tbh once you get a summons it's solicitor time.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Unfortunately taxi drivers are allowed to end the journey at any stage and you are still required to pay.

Therefore you owe the liability.

There's nothing you can do about the assault if they have chosen not to prosecute.

CIARAN_BOYLE

TheChizler wrote: »

Had you a legitimate reason for not paying?

Tbh once you get a summons it's solicitor time.

I sympathise with the passenger as the driver could have left them in the middle of nowhere with no ability to get to their destination and no internet to get another taxi. However that doesn't allow you walk away from the fare.

Gastropod77

TheChizler wrote: »

Had you a legitimate reason for not paying?

Tbh once you get a summons it's solicitor time.

My reasons for not paying were as follows:
1. He didn't drive me the way I wanted to go, which I thought they were bound to
2. He didn't take me to my destination
3. He grabbed me forcefully

Gastropod77

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Unfortunately taxi drivers are allowed to end the journey at any stage and you are still required to pay.

Therefore you owe the liability.

There's nothing you can do about the assault if they have chosen not to prosecute.

I have prosecuted the assault and made a formal statement to the Gardaí but I haven't received even an acknowledgement of my complaint (made 3 months ago).

TheChizler

Gastropod77 wrote: »

My reasons for not paying were as follows:
1. He didn't drive me the way I wanted to go, which I thought they were bound to
2. He didn't take me to my destination
3. He grabbed me forcefully

The normal solution to 1 and 2 is to pay and file a dispute with the regulator unfortunately. 3, even though it's not on has nothing to do with paying the fare, but hadn't you already refused to pay at that point hence the grabbing?

CIARAN_BOYLE

TheChizler wrote: »

The normal solution to 1 and 2 is to pay and file a dispute with the regulator unfortunately. 3, even though it's not on has nothing to do with paying the fare, but hadn't you already refused to pay at that point hence the grabbing?

Per the op he was asked to get out, then grabbed and asked to pay.

ANXIOUS

Tell the judge you understood that it was paid for by card and felt he was overcharging you.

TheChizler

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Per the op he was asked to get out, then grabbed and asked to pay.

I read that but it just seems a bizarre thing to happen without being prompted. Stranger things have happened I suppose.

TheChizler

Reading the acts they make reference to the hirer being liable for the fare payable for the service received once they've directed the driver to drive somewhere, but not that the driver has to drive to that place at all.

Just as a theoretical point for legal discussion, if for instance you fall asleep or aren't paying attention or something, what's to stop the driver from driving up and down the M50 all night and claiming the resulting fare is due for that service? Where does the law say they have to take a reasonable route or even go in the direction you request?

Is there some amendment I've missed that defers to the regulator to decide these things?

davo10

The dash cam which most taxis now have will tell the story. I'm pretty sure Taxis are required to take the most direct route, if you hailed the taxi based on that, but then decided you wanted to take a different, longer route half way through the journey, then you pay the extra charge, my guess is you refused to pay for the route you wanted the taxi to take.

hullaballoo

davo10 wrote: »

The dash cam which most taxis now have will tell the story. I'm pretty sure Taxis are required to take the most direct route, if you hailed the taxi based on that, but then decided you wanted to take a different, longer route half way through the journey, then you pay the extra charge, my guess is you refused to pay for the route you wanted the taxi to take.

You've just invented your own story in your head and then seem to be using that concoction to try and bash the OP.

Unsurprisingly, a dim view is taken of posts like this.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

TheChizler

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think I remember hearing about this happening a few times, any idea which statute relates to this?

GM228

TheChizler wrote: »

I think I remember hearing about this happening a few times, any idea which statute relates to this?

S23 (3), Taxi Regulation Act 2013.

(3) The driver of a taxi when hired for a journey, shall not complete the journey, unless otherwise requested by the passenger, other than by taking—

(a) the shortest route, where practicable, or

(b) with the consent of the passenger, the most convenient route.

It's an offence and could see 1 point added to their SPSV licence or 2 on conviction.

TheChizler

GM228 wrote: »

S23 (3), Taxi Regulation Act 2013.

Excellent, thank you!

ShowMeTheCash

Gastropod77 wrote: »

My reasons for not paying were as follows:
1. He didn't drive me the way I wanted to go, which I thought they were bound to
2. He didn't take me to my destination
3. He grabbed me forcefully

Just to be clear, you said you asked him to change course slightly?

Why?

I think the assumption everyone here is thinking because you thought it would be faster? Or was there a reason you wanted him to go the other route?

In terms of the taxi driver not taking you the shortest route. This can be subjective. I think the case needs to be clear the driver was taking you for a "ride" but you said slight change so by the sounds of it this could simply come down to traffic.

Tbh not paying after the Gardi asked you to pay was probably a mistake.
You could of paid the fair and still pursued the assault.

Now even with the assault it could be argued that he grabbed you because you where legging it without paying...... Either way does not hold you in good stead...

Claw Hammer

The taxi driver is seeking a fare based on a quantum meruit. There is case law to the effect that some contracts are indivisible. The party must get the full item contracted for. A barber cannot cut half your hair, stop and demand payment for the work done and then send you off. It is certainly arguable that a taxi journey to a particular destination is a discrete item. The taxi driver must keep you in the car until you reach your destination unless you breach the contract in some way or the contract becomes frustrated by mechanical breakdown or some other unforeseeable event. the guards always take the side of the taxi driver, which encourages them to go on with this nonsense.

ShowMeTheCash

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The taxi driver is seeking a fare based on a quantum meruit. There is case law to the effect that some contracts are indivisible. The party must get the full item contracted for. A barber cannot cut half your hair, stop and demand payment for the work done and then send you off. It is certainly arguable that a taxi journey to a particular destination is a discrete item. The taxi driver must keep you in the car until you reach your destination unless you breach the contract in some way or the contract becomes frustrated by mechanical breakdown or some other unforeseeable event. the guards always take the side of the taxi driver, which encourages them to go on with this nonsense.

Well we also need to take the OP at his word here. It is a little strange to suggest to a driver to take a different route and for the driver to just stop and tell you to get out, then jump out himself and demand payment in some kind of rage.
One it does not make sense and would suggest that the driver was a bit of a whack job or the OP is fudging how this went down.

From the story, the fact that the guard asked him to pay seems to suggest that the gaurd has sided somewhat with the driver with regards payment, and i am sure the guard got the drivers side of the story also.

Also prosecuting the assult. The OP mentions he was grabbed by the lapels, so the taxi driver grabbed him by the jacket??

I am not 100% sure on this but I think the DPP gets to chose whether to prosecute and by the sounds of it they would not waste their time on this. Grabbing someones jacket I am not even sure would consititute an assult and untimtely as i doubt there was any injury it would come down to his word against the taxi drivers. Again unless there is a witness or some third party evidence to support his claim.

We can we prove, guy ordered a taxi, something happened between the driver and the passenger, the journey was cut short guy refuses to pay. Alleged the taxi driver grabbed him after he existed the vehicle without paying, also alleged that the taxi driver told him to get out without asking for payment.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Effects

TheChizler wrote: »

I think I remember hearing about this happening a few times, any idea which statute relates to this?

It's mentioned in this article about scumbag taxi drivers ripping people off.
http://www.thejournal.ie/taxi-checkpoint-dublin-airport-fine-3489509-Jul2017/

Gastropod77

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Just to be clear, you said you asked him to change course slightly?

Why?

I think the assumption everyone here is thinking because you thought it would be faster? Or was there a reason you wanted him to go the other route?

In terms of the taxi driver not taking you the shortest route. This can be subjective. I think the case needs to be clear the driver was taking you for a "ride" but you said slight change so by the sounds of it this could simply come down to traffic.

Tbh not paying after the Gardi asked you to pay was probably a mistake.
You could of paid the fair and still pursued the assault.

Now even with the assault it could be argued that he grabbed you because you where legging it without paying...... Either way does not hold you in good stead

We were driving the most direct route and he took a turn that was slightly less direct and had worse traffic. I asked him to turn around and keep going the way we had been going.

My suspicion as to why he threw me out is that he had been fiddling with his phone and got a nearby job that would take him back to his manor; this would have meant double the money of completing my journey and would have take him near his home, provided of course he got me to pay what had accrued.
There had been no arguing or raised voices on the journey so this is the only reason I can think of that he threw me out.

In terms of grabbing me to stop me legging it, he didn't have to grab me at all because I booked with MyTaxi, he had my name and address and could have gone to the Guards with that.

ShowMeTheCash

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what would he be waiting on from the Gardi if it is private?

Also can a private prosecuton result in a criminal conviction or would this technically be a civil matter?

GM228

A private prosecution is bringing criminal proceedings where the private individual becomes the prosecutor, and yes they can result in a criminal conviction, it is not a civil proceeding.

They are extremely rare and require the permission of the DPP to proceed.

ShowMeTheCash

Gastropod77 wrote: »

We were driving the most direct route and he took a turn that was slightly less direct and had worse traffic. I asked him to turn around and keep going the way we had been going.

Slightly less direct i doubt would work as an argument around him trying to up the fair.

Gastropod77 wrote: »

My suspicion as to why he threw me out is that he had been fiddling with his phone and got a nearby job that would take him back to his manor; this would have meant double the money of completing my journey and would have take him near his home, provided of course he got me to pay what had accrued.

So you think he was going to throw you out regardless without getting to your destination?
You need to bare with me as the above is not making any sense.
As you are saying he was going to take longer route and now you think he done this to pick up another fair which was going to take longer than it should of?

Gastropod77 wrote: »

There had been no arguing or raised voices on the journey so this is the only reason I can think of that he threw me out.

OK - well from above your reason does not make any sense, unless the driver thought the direction you wanted to go was longer and it would cost him a fair.

[/QUOTE]
In terms of grabbing me to stop me legging it, he didn't have to grab me at all because I booked with MyTaxi, he had my name and address and could have gone to the Guards with that.[/QUOTE]

Sure but what I am saying is, can you prove he grabbed you? Did he admit that to the gardi at the time?

ShowMeTheCash

GM228 wrote: »

A private prosecution is bringing criminal proceedings where the private individual becomes the prosecutor, and yes they can result in a criminal conviction, it is not a civil proceeding.

They are extremely rare and require the permission of the DPP to proceed.

So the DPP can still refuse this? Do you think the DPP would give the OK to do this for someone grabbing you by the jacket?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ShowMeTheCash

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK on initiating does the DPP need to take this or is this something the OP need to fund with their own solicitor?

monument

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Also prosecuting the assult. The OP mentions he was grabbed by the lapels, so the taxi driver grabbed him by the jacket??

I am not 100% sure on this but I think the DPP gets to chose whether to prosecute and by the sounds of it they would not waste their time on this. Grabbing someones jacket I am not even sure would consititute an assult and untimtely as i doubt there was any injury it would come down to his word against the taxi drivers. Again unless there is a witness or some third party evidence to support his claim.

Assult doesn’t even require contact, you just have to “believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact”.

This is the section covering assult — there’s other clauses covering ‘Causing harm’ and ‘Causing serious harm’....

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to

Gastropod77

I have a question someone might be able to help me with.

Presumably the taxi driver made a statement under oath to get me summonsed.
Why was I not given an opportunity to make a statement, just dragged into court? Why did I get no chance to respond formally before that point?

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The DPP can take over a case and then discontinue it. The DPP cannot stop anyone from initiating a private prosecution.

Sorry Fred, I was thinking of an indictable offence or an indictable offence tried summarily, in which case you do require permission from the DPP for a private prosecution, if you don't have the DPPs permission the charge must be dismissed. In the case of an ordinary summary prosecution no permission is required.

ShowMeTheCash

monument wrote: »

Assult doesn’t even require contact, you just have to “believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact”.

This is the section covering assult — there’s other clauses covering ‘Causing harm’ and ‘Causing serious harm’....

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to

So I have read this already.
section b) is really to cover prempting or moving to avoid such a force. i.e. moving when someone takes a swing at you. You need to show or explain reasonable evidence that a force was going to be applied.

But the section that could be argued here is "without lawful excuse".
If the taxi driver argues the OP was trying do him out of the fair does this become a reasonable excuse?? I do not know but grabbing someones jacket for not paying a fair may be deemed a reasonable reaction.

GM228

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So I have read this already.
section b) is really to cover prempting or moving to avoid such a force. i.e. moving when someone takes a swing at you. You need to show or explain reasonable evidence that a force was going to be applied.

But the section that could be argued here is "without lawful excuse".
If the taxi driver argues the OP was trying do him out of the fair does this become a reasonable excuse?? I do not know but grabbing someones jacket for not paying a fair may be deemed a reasonable reaction.

It should be noted that any person can arrest without warrant someone who tries to make off without making payment for goods or services, reasonable force is allowable for arrests without warrant.

A taxi driver is entitled to arrest without warrant anyone who fails to pay a fare and deliver them into the custody of Gardaí.

ShowMeTheCash

GM228 wrote: »

It should be noted that any person can arrest without warrant someone who tries to make off without making payment for goods or services, reasonable force is allowable for arrests without warrant.

This is what I was thinking.

Going back to the facts, the OP has admitted leaving the taxi without payment which does not leave him in a good position. Further refusing to pay even when the Gardi comes really shows that he had no intention of paying the taxi driver at the point of being told to get out.

I doubt very much an assult charge is going to be award to a passenger who refused to pay where the taxi driver grabbed the passenger by the jacket.

Just seems very much he said she said.

@ OP just a matter of interest how much was the fare?

hazeldan

What did your solictor say about it

Gastropod77

GM228 wrote: »

It should be noted that any person can arrest without warrant someone who tries to make off without making payment for goods or services, reasonable force is allowable for arrests without warrant.

A taxi driver is entitled to arrest without warrant anyone who fails to pay a fare and deliver them into the custody of Gardaí.

Incredible. I was absolutely terrified.

A grown man grabbing me in public in daylight screaming in my face 'pay your f-ing' fare.

TheChizler

One of the acts mentioned above does specifically say a taxi driver may detain someone until the Gardaí arrive if they refuse to pay any fare due, I suppose the question is really if the fare was due or not?

hullaballoo

I'd certainly query the "power of arrest" in the circumstances described.

In balancing the constitutional rights at play, it seems unlikely to me that deprivation of liberty is lawful in such circumstances.

ShowMeTheCash

Gastropod77 wrote: »

Incredible. I was absolutely terrified.

A grown man grabbing me in public in daylight screaming in my face 'pay your f-ing' fare.

I would talk to a solicitor. And perhaps get your story straight.

The reasons or explanations to why the taxi driver dropped you sounds somewhat erroneous tbh.
He took a longer route but you think it was to facilitate a different fair does not make any sense....

He told you to get out without asking for payment, only to jump out and scream in your face 'pay your f-ing fare' does not sound right either. Sounds like a lie.

You where terrified but still refused to pay him for 45 minutes even after the gardi asked you to pay, you still refused. Does not sound like the actions of someone who was terrified.

Did the taxi driver call the Gardi also or just you?

In terms of the journey how much of the journey had been taken how far was left to go on the journey?

ShowMeTheCash

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'd certainly query the "power of arrest" in the circumstances described.

In balancing the constitutional rights at play, it seems unlikely to me that deprivation of liberty is lawful in such circumstances.

The taxi driver did not arrest him, the OP is pushing for an assault charge as the taxi driver "grabbed him by the lapels" and screamed "pay for your f--king fair"

Under section 2 this would be deemed assault unless the taxi driver could argue a "lawful excuse". Not paying for the fair could be deemed a lawful excuse no?

shaunr68

GM228 wrote: »

It should be noted that any person can arrest without warrant someone who tries to make off without making payment for goods or services, reasonable force is allowable for arrests without warrant.

A taxi driver is entitled to arrest without warrant anyone who fails to pay a fare and deliver them into the custody of Gardaí.

Supposing an individual refused to pay for a service on the basis that the service had not been provided, but did not attempt to make off. Remained there and gave their name and address to the driver, but steadfastly refused payment. Or offered part payment. This is surely a contractual dispute...to which the guards' typical response is "its a civil matter, sir". Is it a criminal offence to dispute payment for a service which has only been partly delivered?

I read somewhere that if you're not happy with a meal in a restaurant then you are within your rights to pay what you honestly think the meal was worth and as long as (rather than legging it) you leave your details and explain what you're doing and why, then it's up to the restaurant to sue you for the underpayment. This is my understanding from UK contract law which I accept may be different here. Is it?

ShowMeTheCash

shaunr68 wrote: »

Supposing an individual refused to pay for a service on the basis that the service had not been provided, but did not attempt to make off. Remained there and gave their name and address to the driver, but steadfastly refused payment. Or offered part payment. This is surely a contractual dispute...to which the guards' typical response is "its a civil matter, sir". Is it a criminal offence to dispute payment for a service which has only been partly delivered?

I read somewhere that if you're not happy with a meal in a restaurant then you are within your rights to pay what you honestly think the meal was worth and as long as (rather than legging it) you leave your details and explain what you're doing and why, then it's up to the restaurant to sue you for the underpayment. This is my understanding from UK contract law which I accept may be different here. Is it?

There are specific laws when it comes to public transport and failure to pay.
The OP has already outlined the specifics at the beginning of the post. Not the same as not liking your lunch at a cafe.

shaunr68

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

There are specific laws when it comes to public transport and failure to pay.
The OP has already outlined the specifics at the beginning of the post. Not the same as not liking your lunch at a cafe.

Thanks, surely there must be some protection for the punter, what if the taxi driver gets lost, drives you in entirely the wrong direction and dumps you miles from home, is he still entitled to grab you by the lapels and demand his fare? Sounds unreasonable to me, you must be within your rights to refuse to pay for a service that has not been delivered.

ShowMeTheCash

shaunr68 wrote: »

Thanks, surely there must be some protection for the punter, what if the taxi driver gets lost, drives you in entirely the wrong direction and dumps you miles from home, is he still entitled to grab you by the lapels and demand his fare? Sounds unreasonable to me, you must be within your rights to refuse to pay for a service that has not been delivered.

No this was also covered, taxi drivers can be fined for taking "tourists" for a ride. It is a legal requirement that a taxi driver take a direct route.

The OP however said the route was "slightly" different to the route he would of taken. So not really an argument that the taxi driver was taking him anywhere other than the destination they had agreed.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'd certainly query the "power of arrest" in the circumstances described.

In balancing the constitutional rights at play, it seems unlikely to me that deprivation of liberty is lawful in such circumstances.

But hullaballoo, such constitutional (and other) rights have the "save in accorddance with law" provision, the reality is such powers of arrest are no different to powers of arrest afforded to Gardaí for example as at the end of the day weather you are a Guard or ordinary joe you are exercising a power afforded by an act of the Oireachtas and so covered by the save in accordance with law clause.

Unless someone wants to take an expensive constitutional challenge such power is both lawful and constitutional as all legislation is afforded the presumption of constitutionality.

monument

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So I have read this already.
section b) is really to cover prempting or moving to avoid such a force. i.e. moving when someone takes a swing at you. You need to show or explain reasonable evidence that a force was going to be applied.

But the section that could be argued here is "without lawful excuse".
If the taxi driver argues the OP was trying do him out of the fair does this become a reasonable excuse?? I do not know but grabbing someones jacket for not paying a fair may be deemed a reasonable reaction.

You’re moving the goal posts there and your position is not creditable.

Your previous post indicated that you lacked an understanding of what counts as assult and now you’re talking about get out clauses.

ShowMeTheCash

monument wrote: »

You’re moving the goal posts there and your position is not creditable.

Your previous post indicated that you lacked an understanding of what counts as assult and now you’re talking about get out clauses.

Moving the goal posts? My position is not credible?
What posts and what position?

I am not moving the goal posts, I asked the question does grabbing someones jacket count as assault?

The ability to lookup the letter of the law means that I can go from not knowing to knowing pretty quickly, reading English is not rocket science!

But interpretation of the law can be a little more difficult.

Grabbing someone would be deemed assault unless there is a lawful reason. Would this be a fair interpretation?

Also I do not take a position I ask the question "does this become a reasonable excuse?" I think it does....

It is not a get out clause it is common sense, if someone is trying to rob you I am pretty sure you can grab then without fear of being charged with assault?

GM228

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The ability to lookup the letter of the law means that I can go from not knowing to knowing pretty quickly, reading English is not rocket science!

Lookinf up the letter of the law does not equate "knowing".

Reading English or the law is indeed not rocket science, but understanding law is on such a level. Unfortunately going from not knowing to knowing the law is not a quick exercise, far from it.

There are other more important things to consider than simply reading legislation, you need to understand how law is applied and interpretated by the courts, various legal maxims, case law, applicable defences etc, procedures and rules to name but a few.

The law is extremely complicated, reading black and white legislation is probably the most non-black and white thing thing you will ever come accross.

ShowMeTheCash

GM228 wrote: »

Lookinf up the letter of the law does not equate "knowing".

Reading English or the law is indeed not rocket science, but understanding law is on such a level. Unfortunately going from not knowing to knowing the law is not a quick exercise, far from it.

There are other more important things to consider than simply reading legislation, you need to understand how law is applied and interpretated by the courts, various legal maxims, case law, applicable defences etc, procedures and rules to name but a few.

The law is extremely complicated, reading black and white legislation is probably the most non-black and white thing thing you will ever come accross.

I think understanding the legislation does equate knowing, it maybe not help me understand procedure or the application in a court setting. But the law is meant to be understood by the people who are governed by it.

I get that the law is complicated but there is a lot of it.

But I see we have no moved the goal posts and are arguing over who is qualified to interpret the law and no longer arguing over whether the taxi driver has broken the law with regards the the scenario put forward.

What is your take on it? If the taxi driver is brought up on assault charges does he have a lawful reason for grabbing the OP?

GM228

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think understanding the legislation does equate knowing

Unfortunately that is a very naive belief, reading legislation does not equate understanding law - the actual legislation is only one piece of the puzzle of law, anyone on here with experience in the law will confirm that to you.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But I see we have no moved the goal posts and are arguing over who is qualified to interpret the law and no longer arguing over whether the taxi driver has broken the law with regards the the scenario put forward.

IWhat is your take on it? If the taxi driver is brought up on assault charges does he have a lawful reason for grabbing the OP?

Nobody is arguing over who can interpret law, simply pointing out that the law is not as simple as reading the Statute Book.

I have already given my input with regards the matter.