Author Topic: TFL judicial review  (Read 1390 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hippocrates

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2023, 01:25:44 pm »
As I was sitting in front of the current Chief Adjudicator, I can honestly state that he shook his head from right to left in disagreement when the TFL barrister in his final submissions said that CCTV enforcement was valid!  The previous CA had left the room by this stage.
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"
Funny Funny x 1 View List

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 206
  • Karma: +3/-1
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2023, 02:36:52 pm »
From the report, The Standard's reporter found Karen's analogy "bizarre", but not the judge's foreshadowing.

Quote
In a bizarre moment, she compared the Red Route regulations to a restaurant menu offering "cheese board and spotted dick and custard", and asked: "Would a patron reasonably expect to be served cheese board and custard?"

Mr Justice Swift replied, to laughter in Court One: "You know what? These days, you just can't tell."
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Funny Funny x 2 View List

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2711
  • Karma: +67/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2023, 07:11:05 pm »
So apparently the pepipoo directors are sitting on 30k that's apparently held for some future big case. I can't imagine there's going to be another "big case" any time soon, anyone fancy seeing if they'd be willing to fund an appeal to the Court of Appeal?
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
Wow Wow x 1 View List

Hippocrates

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2023, 05:33:47 pm »
From the report, The Standard's reporter found Karen's analogy "bizarre", but not the judge's foreshadowing.

Quote
In a bizarre moment, she compared the Red Route regulations to a restaurant menu offering "cheese board and spotted dick and custard", and asked: "Would a patron reasonably expect to be served cheese board and custard?"

Mr Justice Swift replied, to laughter in Court One: "You know what? These days, you just can't tell."

I laughed deliberately so loudly in an attempt to blow off the TFL barrister's wig.  ;D

The ES often get it wrong.  I believe someone else wrote the argument!
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"

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2711
  • Karma: +67/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2023, 10:51:21 am »
I've just heard that TfL have won the judicial review, the interested parties have until Thursday to ask for permission to appeal.
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: 2711
  • Karma: +67/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2023, 12:24:58 pm »
Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin).

Paragraph 17 is interesting, as it suggests that without an upright sign, there cannot be any CCTV enforcement of a double red line.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2023, 01:33:07 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

Pastmybest

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Karma: +7/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2023, 11:00:17 am »
Having only skim read the judgement two thinks sort of come to mind.

Firstly the upright sign it must be present in the bay. We used to argue regularly that the sign if not facing traffic fell outwith LATOR but that has fallen away as not relevant I think it can now be re born

Secondly the contravention it's self 46 stopped where prohibited on a red route or clearway. if you are within the permitted time of bay operation then can this stand as a reason to believe you commit that offence. I would suggest it should be one of the various parking offences code 30 re parked in a disabled bay or 24 for a loading bay without loading   

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2711
  • Karma: +67/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2023, 12:06:56 pm »
We used to argue regularly that the sign if not facing traffic fell outwith LATOR but that has fallen away as not relevant I think it can now be re born
I'm not sure that ever fell away, we've been winning cases throughout on the basis of inadequate signage, including one that TfL didn't challenge because the signage was indisputably inadequate, and a double red line where the sign said no stopping 7 am to 7 pm (the appellant stopped after 7 pm).

The problem with the bays is that they're not designated parking places, so the other codes cannot apply.
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: 297
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2023, 02:20:17 pm »
Quo vadis cp?
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"

H C Andersen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2023, 10:10:13 am »

If not a designated parking place, then which part of para. 3 to Part 2 of Schedule 7 applies?

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2711
  • Karma: +67/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #40 on: November 19, 2023, 01:42:31 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: 369
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • View Profile

H C Andersen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2023, 06:00:22 pm »

My question related to 'designated parking bays' and the issues, albeit separate from CCTV, that were raised by PMB.

As far as I can see, this adjudication decision relates to OGL and waiting/stopping, not designated parking places under s.45 RTRA.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2711
  • Karma: +67/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2023, 11:12:25 pm »

My question related to 'designated parking bays' and the issues, albeit separate from CCTV, that were raised by PMB.

As far as I can see, this adjudication decision relates to OGL and waiting/stopping, not designated parking places under s.45 RTRA.
But the principle is the same, the waiting provisions of para 3 of the Schedule covers stopping (Mr Chan has told me he agrees with that).
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: 297
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #44 on: December 02, 2023, 12:50:24 pm »
I've just heard that TfL have won the judicial review, the interested parties have until Thursday to ask for permission to appeal.
Personally, I have no faith in the justice system.  In this case below*, the guy went to the Court of Appeal and Lord Justice Simon ordered him to pay the Traffic Penalty Tribunal!  And refused to amend.  The High Court Judge ordered him to pay the Council!  Sadly, his application to the European Court was received a day late!  :(

One has a better chance of being reimbursed for a flight delay and/or cancellation under EC261/2004 8)

*C1/2014/4207 (High Court ref: CO/3449/2014‏)
« Last Edit: December 02, 2023, 01:34:11 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"