3. TFL judicial review
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic: TFL judicial review  (Read 21282 times)

0 Members and 376 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #15 on: »
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.

Logged
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #16 on: »
Quote from: H C Andersen on August 24, 2023, 04:53:52 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?
Logged
I am not qualified to give legal advice in the UK. While I will do my best to help you, you should not rely on my advice as if it was given by a lawyer qualified in the UK.
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #17 on: »
Quote from: Southpaw82 on August 24, 2023, 05:36:25 pm
Quote from: H C Andersen on August 24, 2023, 04:53:52 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.
Logged
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #18 on: »
Quote from: Southpaw82 on August 24, 2023, 05:36:25 pm
Quote from: H C Andersen on August 24, 2023, 04:53:52 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.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #19 on: »
I cannot miss the Khan v Chan show.  ;)
Logged
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #20 on: »
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.
Logged
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #21 on: »
Quote from: Grant Urismo 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.

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
Logged
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #22 on: »
Quote from: Grant Urismo 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.
If you read both the panel decision and Mr Chan's review, you'll see that this has been specifically considered.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #23 on: »
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #24 on: »
Logged
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #25 on: »
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.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #26 on: »
Quote from: cp8759 on September 04, 2023, 02:05:34 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 »
Logged
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #27 on: »
Any news on the outcome?
Logged
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #28 on: »
See here:
Quote from: John U.K. on October 26, 2023, 03:39:29 pm
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
Logged
Useful Useful x 1 View List
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #29 on: »
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
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
« previous next »
  3. TFL judicial review