Appellant fails in Divisional Court challenge to convictions over failure to meet private hire vehicle licensing requirements

The Divisional Court has rejected an appeal by the owner of a company that contracted with local authorities to provide transport services for children with special educational needs against his conviction on four charges of being the operator of a private hire vehicle (PHV) when a PHV licence was not in force, and two charges of being the operator of a PHV when the driver was not the holder of a PHV driver’s licence.

Samit Biswas argued that District Judge Neeta Minhas, sitting at City of London Magistrates' Court, was wrong in law when she found him guilty of the six charges brought by Transport for London.

This reached the Divisional Court (Lord Justice Dingemans and Mrs Justice Farbey) as a case stated in which DJ Minhas asked if she erred in law or fact in finding that at the material times:

  • the defendant was an 'operator' within the meaning of section 1 of the Private Hire Vehicle (London) Act 1998 [the Act];
  • the vehicles were 'private hire vehicles' within the meaning of section 1 of [the Act];
  • the vehicles were being 'used as a private hire vehicle' within the meaning of section 6 and/or section 12 of [the Act];
  • the vehicles and drivers…were subject to the Transport for London private hire vehicle licensing requirements?

The district judge also asked if she was entitled to convict Mr Biswas.

The appellant argued DJ Minhas effectively reversed the burden of proof by holding he had not proved any exemption from the licensing requirements of the Act and by asking whether he had proved that the vehicles were not ambulances or patient transport falling outside the statutory scheme.

His other objections were that DJ Minhas erred in concluding his vehicles were made available for hire under section 1(1)(a) of the Act and were used "for the purpose of carrying passengers" under section 1(1)(a) of the Act.

Mr Biswas’ company, trading as Hippo Mobility, contracted with local authorities to provide transport for children with special educational needs.

During the period of the offences (1 November to 22 November 2020) it provided four vehicles with drivers to Bromley, Enfield and Hillingdon councils. The transport services were provided for commercial reward under a separate contract with each local authority.

The court heard neither the company nor Mr Biswas held a private hire operator's licence for any of the vehicles, two of which transported children without a driver who held a private hire vehicle driver's licence.

Each was registered with DVLA either as an ambulance or as a disabled passenger vehicle.

Farbey J said DJ Minhas’s findings of fact ruled out the possibility that the vehicles had a medical function that fell outside the private hire regime and indicated that in any event there was no statutory exception for ambulance and patient transport and nor she did not reverse the burden of proof.

The judge said there were “no grounds for contending that, in referring to guidance, the DJ imposed a burden on the appellant to prove that his vehicles and drivers did not perform a medical function”.

She continued: “There is nothing to suggest that her reliance on guidance reversed the burden of proof or that she did not proceed on the basis that the burden of proof in relation to each of the six charges rested on the prosecution. There is nothing in the case stated to suggest that she made any error.”

Dismissing the point about whether Mr Biswas’s vehicles were for hire, Farley J said: “It is one thing to say that the local authorities engaged the appellant's company in order to discharge statutory duties to children with SEN.

“It is quite another thing to say that the discharge of those duties did not involve the hire of transport from private providers. There is nothing in the language of section 1 of the 1998 Act to suggest that procuring school transport cannot involve ‘hire’.”

Mr Biswas submitted DJ Minhas was wrong to conclude that the four vehicles were used "for the purpose of carrying passengers" within the meaning of section 1(1)(a) of the 1998 Act.

Farbey J said: “The DJ was entitled to conclude that a school transport service for children with SEN was not the same as, and did not share the characteristics of, the transportation of patients for medical needs.”

In conclusion, Farley J said DJ Minhas had been right on all five questions. Lord Justice Dingemans agreed.

Mark Smulian