The Court of Appeal has allowed the National Transport Authority’s appeal over the dismissal of two charges against Christopher Anderson, who was accused of operating an unlicensed taxi service in New Ross, County Wexford. The court held that the District judge was wrong in law to dismiss the case because an authorised person lacked power to investigate unlicensed operators. It sent the matter back to the District Court for further consideration.
The charges arose from a journey on 20 August 2022. An NTA compliance employee, Mr Carey, who had been appointed an authorised person, arranged a joint operation with gardaí after receiving information that Anderson was operating an unlicensed taxi service. Carey booked a ride, travelled in Anderson’s white Ford Mondeo and paid for the journey. The judgment describes the operation as a “covert test purchase”.
After the journey, Carey identified himself, showed his warrant, and asked Anderson questions. Anderson gave his name, date of birth and address, and explained why he was operating without a licence. Carey said in evidence that he had not invoked any statutory powers during the encounter. The District judge dismissed the charges after accepting the argument that section 40(3) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 did not empower an authorised person to target unlicensed operators. The High Court upheld that decision.
On appeal, the NTA argued that an authorised person could take investigative steps that any member of the public could lawfully take, even without an express statutory power. Anderson accepted that proposition but argued that Carey had acted unlawfully by presenting himself as having statutory authority he did not possess.
The Court of Appeal said the District judge had made no factual finding that Carey purported to exercise statutory powers or that Anderson believed he was obliged to answer. The court also said the evidence did not establish that Carey invoked such powers. It held that a covert test purchase was not unlawful merely because the legislation did not expressly authorise it, and that a statutory investigator may do what an ordinary member of the public may lawfully do, subject to the rights of the person affected.
The court did not decide whether the evidence against Anderson should be admitted. It said that question could not be resolved on the case stated and would require the District Court to assess the relevant facts and apply the law on evidence obtained illegally. The matter was remitted for that consideration. The Court of Appeal made no costs order, while allowing either party 14 days to make written submissions on costs.