Author Topic: TFL judicial review  (Read 1397 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

H C Andersen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
  • Karma: +11/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2023, 04:53:52 pm »
No-one is suggesting that the memorandum etc. gives a legal interpretation, that's a matter for the courts. But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point. If one looks at the other elements they all seem to have been ported across without change or the reason behind the change explained, not the legal interpretation but the department's reason for seeking to make the change. 

I mention this only because weight is being placed on the revised wording and revisions normally have a purpose, but in this case unexplained.

The court will decide and let's hope their decision is clear-cut and prompt.


Southpaw82

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 188
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2023, 05:36:25 pm »
But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point.
Are they an admissible aid to construction?

DancingDad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • Karma: +11/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2023, 08:04:12 pm »
But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point.
Are they an admissible aid to construction?
I'm sure that I have seen them referred to in HC cases but would need to go hunting to find where and how.

A little academic in this case as the notes give no rational or even mention the changes.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Karma: +68/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2023, 02:12:37 pm »
But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point.
Are they an admissible aid to construction?
My understanding is that they are, if there were any authorities against that I'm sure TFL's KC would have pointed it out at the review hearing.
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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2023, 09:00:04 pm »
I cannot miss the Khan v Chan show.  ;)
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.

"Hippocrates"

Grant Urismo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2023, 10:20:12 pm »
Just because I haven't seen this point mentioned in this thread... a CEO can (and should) check for a blue badge and dashboard clock and record useful evidence about them if they are present, fixed CCTV can't reliably do this and it's unreasonable to expect blue badge holders to have to appeal a constant stream of tickets for lawful behaviour.

If this point isn't considered at the judicial review then I expect disability discrimination might provide a second avenue to banning the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.

DancingDad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • Karma: +11/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2023, 10:57:45 am »
Just because I haven't seen this point mentioned in this thread... a CEO can (and should) check for a blue badge and dashboard clock and record useful evidence about them if they are present, fixed CCTV can't reliably do this and it's unreasonable to expect blue badge holders to have to appeal a constant stream of tickets for lawful behaviour.

If this point isn't considered at the judicial review then I expect disability discrimination might provide a second avenue to banning the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.

TFL have batted this one away for many years, claiming that their cameras can spot a BB but failing to explain how... with many videos being taken from the rear of the car.
But is part of the argument that CP put forward and no doubt will be considered in the upcoming review

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Karma: +68/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2023, 05:24:51 pm »
Just because I haven't seen this point mentioned in this thread... a CEO can (and should) check for a blue badge and dashboard clock and record useful evidence about them if they are present, fixed CCTV can't reliably do this and it's unreasonable to expect blue badge holders to have to appeal a constant stream of tickets for lawful behaviour.

If this point isn't considered at the judicial review then I expect disability discrimination might provide a second avenue to banning the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.
If you read both the panel decision and Mr Chan's review, you'll see that this has been specifically considered.
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

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Karma: +68/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2023, 02:05:34 pm »
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

John U.K.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • View Profile

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Karma: +68/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2023, 05:26:46 pm »
Oh well, I'm sure TFL's solicitor will work out what to do next.

I'm not going to worry about other interested parties because it seems unlikely they would have anything of substance to add.
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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2023, 12:35:15 pm »
Order of The Honourable Mr Justice Martin Spencer.
I trust that the learned Mr Chan's statement was excellent? ;D

Observations 3 and 4 are noted.  Therefore, I presume the CA will not necessarily have to attend?

Please inform me/us when an exact date is finalised for the hearing.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2023, 12:42:55 pm by Hippocrates »
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.

"Hippocrates"

ghostivv

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2023, 07:22:31 pm »
Any news on the outcome?

DWMB2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Karma: +12/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2023, 07:30:34 pm »
See here:
These sites carry reports. The first is regularly updated.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/transport-for-london-tfl-high-court-parking-tickets-cctv-b1116055.html#comments-area
Similar to Standard but less adverts
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tfl-could-refund-500-000-065411720.html

No mention of barrister or case for LT - sounds as if CPS had to make their own case?

Case concluded 4p.m,. judgement reserved - expected in a few weeks.

cp8759 was of course there so may be able to provide more context at a later date

DancingDad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • Karma: +11/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2023, 08:08:09 pm »
For once a newspaper report that doesn't seem full of errors

Hats off and a round of applause for Karen, not easy for a layperson in court