Permission refused on papers for judicial review challenge to taxi CCTV licensing policy

The High Court has refused permission for a judicial review challenge that contended South Cambridgeshire District Council's policy requiring taxis to be fitted with CCTV was irrational.

Sir Ross Cranston, sitting as a High Court judge, found that none of the claimant's contentions exceeded the "high threshold for irrationality in public law" and found that a challenge the claimant made of the delay of the policy's implementation was brought out of time.

The district council's Licensing Committee first approved a draft policy for consultation in 2017 that required all licensed hackney carriage and private hire vehicles to be fitted with CCTV.

The policy underwent consultation and was considered multiple times between 2017 and 2022 before the Licensing Committee approved plans in October 2022 to implement the policy by April 2023.

At the October 2022 Committee meeting, an officer's report said there was "adequate justification to mandate the installation of CCTV in licensed vehicles" based on data reported to the council and crime reports relating to taxi incidents.

The Committee's chair later met with taxi drivers in March 2023, who argued the policy was irrational and should be delayed until September 2023. Drivers staged a protest outside the council's offices that same month.

But the council pressed ahead, prompting the drivers to launch judicial review proceedings against the policy and the council's refusal to reverse or review implementation until September 2023.

Cranston J considered documents lodged by the claimant and the acknowledgment of service filed by the council before writing his order for refusal. 

In his order, the judge wrote: "There is a fatal flaw to the application in that the policy was adopted on 21 October 2022 so that the application to this court on 30 March 2023 is well out of time."

He noted that the claimant could not avoid this flaw by contending that it was challenging the council's refusal in March 2023 to reverse and/or review its previous decisions.

He said: "The fact is that the policy was adopted some 5 months previously, when under the rules judicial review claims must be filed promptly, and within 3 months at the latest."

The claimant's second ground contended that the policy was irrational, disproportionate and unfair since the number of incidents in private hire vehicles was "minuscule", and given the cost and lack of choice members have in who will install it, and because other private hire drivers working in the district need not have it.

Under this ground, they also argued that it was an "unjustified invasion" of the privacy of the driver, the driver's family and passengers, and raised an argument relating to data protection issues.

In addition, the claimant stated that the date of implementation was irrational and unfair in light of the late provision of specifications, the limited number of providers, and because Cambridge City Council put the start date for its scheme back to 1 September 2023.

But Cranston J dismissed all of these points, noting that "none of these contentions surmount the high threshold for irrationality in public law".

He stated: "The council has a considerable discretion in exercising its statutory function of granting licences for private hire vehicles. As of July 2020, it had to have regard in its relevant policy to the Government's Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards which states that CCTV can provide a safer environment for passengers and drivers.

"[The] Council considered the arguments behind the policy, the policy details, and relevant statistical material bearing on the policy […]. It was up to the council to weigh this and other considerations in the adoption of the policy.

"What Cambridge City Council is doing provides no basis for concluding that the council is acting perversely when it is adopting a different start date. The data protection issues are not particularised. Out of area vehicles have a right to drive in the council's district, but that is no basis for the claim of perversity."

The judge ordered the claimant to pay costs of £4,242 to the council.

Commenting on the decision, South Cambridgeshire District Council's Lead Cabinet Member for Licensing, Cllr Henry Batchelor, said the council consulted "extensively while developing this policy and there was strong support for CCTV from residents".

He added: "The installation of CCTV in taxis has been on the agenda for several years now and was only delayed because we recognised the difficulties the trade faced throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Following research with suppliers, the cost of a CCTV system is around £500 for a taxi.

"Many taxi drivers also support the policy because they recognise the presence of CCTV will reduce the number of incidents of abusive and violent behaviour towards them. The data recorded will be encrypted and stored securely in the vehicle; it will not be accessible by the driver or the taxi operator.

"Most of the images recorded will never even be seen because they will be erased after 28 days. Only if there is an incident or complaint will they be analysed by the police or other authorised officers when gathering evidence. For anyone who has family members or friends who drive taxis or travel in them, it should be reassuring to have the additional safety net that CCTV provides."

Philip Kolvin KC of 11KBW was instructed by South Cambridgeshire District Council.

Adam Carey