The High Court ruled that a taxi owner charged over use of his vehicle by an unlicensed driver cannot rely on lack of knowledge or permission alone. To establish a defence, the owner must satisfy the trial judge, on the balance of probabilities, that he took all reasonable steps to prevent the breach.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the ruling electronically on 17 June 2020 after a District Court judge referred two questions of law. The case concerned section 22 of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013, which prohibits driving a small public service vehicle for hire or reward without the relevant licences and also makes the vehicle’s owner liable for a contravention.
The National Transport Authority argued that the owner’s liability was strict: prosecutors did not have to prove the owner knew about, or permitted, the unlicensed use. The defendant accepted that the offence was strict liability but argued that the prosecution still had to prove some awareness that the taxi was being used unlawfully.
The High Court rejected that argument. It distinguished the case from possession offences, where awareness that an item is present is part of the concept of possession. The court said section 22 imposed an obligation on an owner who controls the vehicle, and that requiring proof of the owner’s knowledge would make the provision effectively unworkable. The ruling said strict liability did not make the owner an absolute guarantor: a due diligence defence remained available.
The questions arose from a prosecution following events at a taxi stand on Baggot Street Upper, Dublin 4, shortly before midnight on 12 August 2017. An NTA compliance officer reported seeing the taxi’s roof sign illuminated and its meter showing “For Hire”. The driver, David Beakhurst, said he was waiting to collect his father and did not hold a PSV driver licence. The judgment records that David Beakhurst was convicted of an offence under the Act.
The defendant, Ernest Beakhurst, was the registered owner and held a valid PSV licence for the taxi. In an interview, he said he had not allowed anyone to use it for hire or reward, had left it outside his house, and learned his son was driving it later that night. These were interview statements described in the judgment, not findings by the High Court about the defendant’s account.
On the first question, the High Court said there was adequate admissible evidence for the District Court to establish the owner offence if the trial judge accepted the prosecution evidence about the driver’s unlicensed use and was satisfied as to ownership. But the owner’s trial had not concluded. He remained entitled to present evidence of due diligence. The High Court did not decide whether he had established that defence or determine the final outcome of his prosecution.