Taxi driver loses appeal over conviction for making additional charge of wheelchair user

A taxi driver has lost an appeal over his conviction of an offence under the Equality Act 2010 of making an additional charge for a disabled person in a wheelchair.

Thomas McNutt was found guilty by Hendon Magistrates Court on 23 May 2018 of the offence contrary­­ to s.165(7) of the 2010 Act.

The background to the case of McNutt v Transport for London [2019] EWHC 365 (Admin) was that on 4 October 2017 the complainant, a wheelchair user, had gone to a taxi rank with her assistant.

McNutt was the first driver on the rank. Before he unlocked the wheelchair ramp, and before the two women had boarded, he activated the taximeter fitted to his taxi.

The assistant challenged McNutt about it as the complainant would be charged for the time it took to get her and her wheelchair into the taxi.

There was an altercation and the two women boarded another taxi. No money had changed hands between the complainant and her assistant and McNutt.

McNutt was later interviewed under caution by Transport for London and then summonsed for the offence contraty to s.165(7) read with s.165(4)(b).

The magistrates rejected McNutt’s claim that there was no case to answer, and were of the view that the point in time when the making of the charge commenced was the point when McNutt turned on his taximeter. Accordingly, they found him guilty.

McNutt was conditionally discharged for twelve months, ordered to pay costs of £1,000, compensation of £75 each to the complainant and her assistant, and a £20 victim surcharge.

He appealed by way of case stated to the High Court, which was asked:

(1) Did the appellant make an additional charge for carrying a wheelchair user on 4 October 2017?

(2) Did the magistrates err in law by convicting the defendant of making an additional charge for carrying a wheelchair user, contrary to s 165(7) Equality Act 2010 ?

Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the main issue on the appeal was whether a 'charge' was made by the appellant by the act of him switching on his taximeter before the complainant and her assistant had boarded, even though the complainant never entered his taxi, no money was demanded (either expressly or by implication) and they ended up travelling in a different taxi.

The High Court judge concluded that a taxi driver makes a charge when he switches his taximeter on, and if he does this for a disabled passenger before the passenger and her wheelchair have been loaded into the taxi, there will be an additional charge and thus an offence under s 165(7) even if, for whatever reason, the driver never actually demands the fare.

Judge Knowles said it could not have been Parliament's intention that the word 'charge' should be construed so that a taxi driver only becomes criminally liable for charging a disabled passenger more when he actually demands the additional fare at the conclusion of the journey.

“It would mean that an unscrupulous taxi driver would be able to avoid his duty to carry disabled passengers, and his duty to assist them if necessary, by quoting an inflated fare upon being flagged down, knowing that it will not be accepted and he will then be free to drive off in search of a non-disabled fare.

“Another example might be the dishonest driver who puts an additional charge on the meter hoping that the disabled customer does not spot it, but who does not demand the additional amount if the passenger does notice. If [counsel for the appellant’s] construction of s 165(4)(b) were correct, in neither scenario would the driver commit the offence under a 165(7) because he would not have actually demanded the additional amount, and (in the first scenario) he would be able to avoid his statutory duty without consequence. The second scenario would deprive disabled people of significant protection. These would be absurd results and wholly inconsistent with the stated purpose of the section. In my judgment they are not something which Parliament could have intended.”

The judge went on to consider the position in relation to private hire vehicles in London, and taxis and PHVs outside London.