Author Topic: TFL judicial review  (Read 3727 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
  • Karma: +88/-3
    • View Profile
TFL judicial review
« on: August 05, 2023, 01:25:48 pm »
Following an application by Transport for London, this court order has been made.

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1JpH-X-iO2uG0mXTapM85S4iRcr60XWlZ

TFL has stated in correspondence that:

I confirm that TfL will not seek to recover its costs against any of the appellants should they choose to participate in the proposed judicial review proceedings, given the general public importance of the resolution of the core issue in these appeals and for the avoidance of doubt, nor will it seek to recover its costs against your organisation.

I would suggest anyone with an outstanding PCN affected by the interpretation of Regulation 11 has standing to join the proceedings as an interested party, and to oppose the claim.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2023, 05:46:18 pm by cp8759 »
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I am not a lawyer.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


MMV Redux

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2023, 04:38:19 pm »
The meaning of "costs"-- suggests they will not seek to recover their legal fees should they be successful at JR but will still seek the penalty charges in those cases where they have sought a Review of the Tribunal's Decision.

It appears imperative that the Tribunal, as the Defendant, lists all those cases, such as Jimmy M's, where TfL have sought a Review obviously with the JR in mind.

The key issue for some of those PCN appellants is of course that they did forgo the discount in the knowledge of the Panel Decision. It would therefore be grossly unfair, if TfL were successful at JR, that they be dunned the higher amount of the penalty charge. That situation is highly prejudicial.


Mike

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2023, 11:11:29 am »
As a matter of interest, who are the Tribunal's solicitors?  Looking forward to this immensely.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

John U.K.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2023, 11:51:53 am »
Suspect that TfL/GLA will have in house solicitors. No doubt they will follow Ealing's example and brief top KCs, though Mr.Byass who appeared at the panel hearing does not appear to be a K.C.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
  • Karma: +88/-3
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2023, 09:17:30 pm »
Anyone with an outstanding PCN (at whatever stage) might want to email generaloffice@administrativecourtoffice.justice.gov.uk and inform the court that they consider they're an interested party to case CO/2884/2023.

Apparently it hasn't occurred to TFL that if they pursue everyone pending the judicial review, it makes them all interested parties.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I am not a lawyer.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2023, 10:28:04 pm »
So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be fixed?  New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2023, 10:31:00 pm »
Suspect that TfL/GLA will have in house solicitors. No doubt they will follow Ealing's example and brief top KCs, though Mr.Byass who appeared at the panel hearing does not appear to be a K.C.

I meant the Tribunal's solicitors.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 353
  • Karma: +5/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2023, 12:02:10 am »
So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be fixed?  New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?

To which "problem" are you referring?

The problem that motorists have is that TfL have decided that the protections that Parliament deliberately put in place to protect them from over-zealous authorities seeking to line their own pockets is hindering their god-given right to line their own pockets with minimum effort.

The problem that TfL have is that Parliament clearly decided that they must not use CCTV to enforce parking bays, which potentially hinders their ability to line their own pockets with minimum effort.

This is not a loophole that needs fixing - it is legislation being interpreted (by the Tribunal) the way that Parliament intended, and which TfL are ignoring. The closest to an actual loophole is that if the legislation is taken literally, CCTV is only allowed to be used where there are both single or double red lines *and* the time plates required only for single red lines - so CCTV would not be allowed for double red lines with no time plate (which is all double red lines). TfL's argument is that this literal interpretation would be absurd, so rather than applying the golden rule and reading in "in the case of single red lines" to the time plate requirement, the entire provision must be treated as a dead letter or otherwise read so as to allow TfL to do whatever they like. I must have been off sick when we did that rule of statutory interpretation.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Like Like x 1 View List

DancingDad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
  • Karma: +11/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2023, 09:11:17 am »
So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be fixed?  New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?
Assuming the court finds with LT and that camera enforcement is unlawful, either TFL go back to parliament asking for a revision to the 2022 regs or they employ loads of CEOs and stop relying on Met Police or cameras

That is an assumption, the court may well decide that the interpretation of Red Route is more general and that camera use anywhere on a REd Route is OK.
This interpretation was difficult to argue against under the 2015 Amendment that interpreted Red Routes as "“red route” means a road conveying such red route road markings and signs as authorised or directed by the Secretary of State in the exercise of powers conferred on him by sections 64(1) and (2) and 65(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(4);"

It is within the 2022 regs that a tighter definition was brought in.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2023, 12:13:20 pm by DancingDad »

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
  • Karma: +88/-3
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2023, 01:42:14 am »
I meant the Tribunal's solicitors.
A judicial tribunal would not engage solicitors, they have a panel of over 20 experienced judicial officers holders so they should hardly need external legal advice. At most they might engage a barrister to represent them, but that would be exceptionally rare.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I am not a lawyer.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

MMV Redux

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2023, 07:59:09 am »
I have real fears that instead of the mentioned golden rule Counsel for TfL will concentrate on a purposive approach to statutory interpretation.

If the issue at hand boils down to what Parliament intended, a purposive approach will be a real threat to the Tribunal's defence.

Against that, any decision for using cameras for bay enforcement would have wider ramifications in terms of CCTV use.

If the Tribunl approached the case on the concept of illegality then the Supreme Court judgements in Patel v Mirza and Stoffel v Henderson would become relevant.

Mike
« Last Edit: August 21, 2023, 01:12:08 pm by MMV Redux »

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
  • Karma: +88/-3
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2023, 01:59:10 am »
Except that as Mr Chan puts it, a purposive approach supports the tribunal's interpretation.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I am not a lawyer.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

DancingDad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
  • Karma: +11/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2023, 08:14:30 am »
Except that as Mr Chan puts it, a purposive approach supports the tribunal's interpretation.

That depends on what purpose is being approached.
If it is believed that the purpose of restricting use of cameras where a CEO could do the job, fine.
However if it is believed that the purpose of allowing cameras on Red Routes is enforce No Stopping, anywhere on the route, the wording of Reg 11 would mean little.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2023, 10:27:10 am »

If it's considered that the 2007 and 2022 Regs intentionally distinguish between the use of CCTV in these circumsyances then I find it interesting that there's no reference to this in either the Explanatory Note or Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the SI.

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 353
  • Karma: +5/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2023, 01:30:09 pm »
As explanatory notes, memoranda or even section headings do not form part of the legislation, and much like what you might or might not find interesting, have no bearing on statutory interpretation.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.