Addison Lee "die-in"

[Bigsharn]

I came across this earlier, and wasn't sure how many were aware of it. I won't be attending personally, but figured it's definitely worth a post:
https://www.facebook.com/events/392495397451954/

On a related note, Chocolate sauce + red food dye makes awesome fake blood

 

[musa]

I came across this earlier, and wasn't sure how many were aware of it. I won't be attending personally, but figured it's definitely worth a post:
https://www.facebook.com/events/392495397451954/

On a related note, Chocolate sauce + red food dye makes awesome fake blood

many a-thread has mentioned it

 

[CyclingBarrister]

In encouraging his mini-cab drivers to take to bus lanes, Mr. Griffin has committed an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007
Mr Griffin has stated that in his view his min-cabs should be able to drive in London bus lanes. He has urged that they do so despite this being illegal and has offered to "indemnify any fines or payments".
The law
The Serious Crime Act 2007 replaces the old law on incitement. Section 45 provides that:
“A person commits an offence if—
(a)he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and
(b)he believes—
(i)that the offence will be committed; and
(ii)that his act will encourage or assist its commission.”
According to an April 16 Addison Lee website press release (http://www.addisonlee.com/press/read/560) Mr Griffin issued a letter “to Addison Lee’s 3,500 minicab drivers, instructing them to use the bus lanes. Addison Lee will indemnify its drivers from any fines or payments that result from this action”
This action is at least ‘capable’ of encouraging drivers to act in contravention of road traffic regulations and ignore traffic signs, which would amount to a criminal offence.
It is very clear that Mr Griffin intends (at least believes) that his drivers will act as he has instructed. This is evidenced from his offer of indemnity where his drivers are fined. To commit an offence under this Section, the offence encouraged need not actually be committed by anyone, so it is immaterial whether any Addison Lee drivers actually went on to commit the offence.
In sum, as a matter of law, Mr Griffin has committed an offence contrary to Section 45. Will he be prosecuted?
Prosecution policy
The Crown Prosecution Service must ask themselves two questions when they are making their decisions as to whether to prosecute an offence.
First, is there enough evidence against the defendant?
It is submitted that in this case the answer is surely in the affirmative. The comments made by Mr Griffin were published on Addison Lee’s website. Further, Mr Griffin has confirmed his comments and sought to defend them on policy grounds (which would not be a defence under the Act).
Second, is a prosecution required in the public interest?
Ensuring road traffic safety in London is of course in the public interest. So too therefore is prosecuting those who encourage contravention of road traffic regulations. Mr Griffin’s case is aggravated by his offer of financial incentive to those who follow his instructions. So concerned were Transport for London at Mr Griffin’s comments, they issued a press release stating “By issuing (the letter), Addison Lee risk… leave[ing] their staff liable to criminal prosecution.” Additionally there are concerns regarding the safety of other road users. Not least, cyclists who use bus lanes are at risk of being put at danger if bus lanes are used by traffic prohibited from using them.

 

[Red Light]

In encouraging his mini-cab drivers to take to bus lanes, Mr. Griffin has committed an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007
Mr Griffin has stated that in his view his min-cabs should be able to drive in London bus lanes. He has urged that they do so despite this being illegal and has offered to "indemnify any fines or payments".
The law
The Serious Crime Act 2007 replaces the old law on incitement. Section 45 provides that:
“A person commits an offence if—
(a)he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and
(b)he believes—
(i)that the offence will be committed; and
(ii)that his act will encourage or assist its commission.”
According to an April 16 Addison Lee website press release (http://www.addisonlee.com/press/read/560) Mr Griffin issued a letter “to Addison Lee’s 3,500 minicab drivers, instructing them to use the bus lanes. Addison Lee will indemnify its drivers from any fines or payments that result from this action”
This action is at least ‘capable’ of encouraging drivers to act in contravention of road traffic regulations and ignore traffic signs, which would amount to a criminal offence.
It is very clear that Mr Griffin intends (at least believes) that his drivers will act as he has instructed. This is evidenced from his offer of indemnity where his drivers are fined. To commit an offence under this Section, the offence encouraged need not actually be committed by anyone, so it is immaterial whether any Addison Lee drivers actually went on to commit the offence.
In sum, as a matter of law, Mr Griffin has committed an offence contrary to Section 45. Will he be prosecuted?
Prosecution policy
The Crown Prosecution Service must ask themselves two questions when they are making their decisions as to whether to prosecute an offence.
First, is there enough evidence against the defendant?
It is submitted that in this case the answer is surely in the affirmative. The comments made by Mr Griffin were published on Addison Lee’s website. Further, Mr Griffin has confirmed his comments and sought to defend them on policy grounds (which would not be a defence under the Act).
Second, is a prosecution required in the public interest?
Ensuring road traffic safety in London is of course in the public interest. So too therefore is prosecuting those who encourage contravention of road traffic regulations. Mr Griffin’s case is aggravated by his offer of financial incentive to those who follow his instructions. So concerned were Transport for London at Mr Griffin’s comments, they issued a press release stating “By issuing (the letter), Addison Lee risk… leave[ing] their staff liable to criminal prosecution.” Additionally there are concerns regarding the safety of other road users. Not least, cyclists who use bus lanes are at risk of being put at danger if bus lanes are used by traffic prohibited from using them.

I think you'll find his defence in his statements that the believes the bus lane restrictions are unlawful and had obtained a Judicial Review of them for later this year before he wrote his letter. He therefore fails on 45b(i) of the criteria in the SCA2007 that you set out.

 

[CyclingBarrister]

All that is required under 45b(i) is that he believes that the offence will be committed. His JD claim will not impact the legality of a driver using a bus lane today - they still commit an offence and an offence he encouraged and believed (hence anticipating the necessity to pay a fine)

 

[Red Light]

All that is required under 45b(i) is that he believes that the offence will be committed. His JD claim will not impact the legality of a driver using a bus lane today - they still commit an offence and an offence he encouraged and believed (hence anticipating the necessity to pay a fine)

I thought he had made it very clear that he believes an offence will not be committed as the current legislation is discriminatory and unlawful hence the JD.

 

[CyclingBarrister]

He believes an offence will be committed but does not agree with the state of the law.

Thinking that a law should not apply is different than knowning that it does apply.

If I do not agree that it should be against the law to kill people, i still understand (believe) I commit an offence if i kill someone.

 

[Red Light]

The belief has to be reasonable and the fact that he had been granted a JD indicates there is a reasonable case to be made. And he has said he doesn't believe an offence will be committed and that any fines will be repaid in due course.

"Addison Lee believes that we cannot allow our customers to continue to be victims of this unfair and discriminatory treatment.
"As chairman, I can advise you that a lawful interpretation of the bus lane regulation entitles Addison Lee drivers with private hire identifiers to use all bus lanes in the same way as our competitors. Accordingly, you are fully entitled to use the bus lanes."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/16/london-cab-firm-drivers-bus-lanes

He may be wrong but that is his belief.

 

[classic33]

I came across this earlier, and wasn't sure how many were aware of it. I won't be attending personally, but figured it's definitely worth a post:
https://www.facebook.com/events/392495397451954/

On a related note, Chocolate sauce + red food dye makes awesome fake blood

Olive oil with the darkest red lipstick you can find is also good at making lifelike fake blood. What it tastes like in the mouth is another question.

 

[CyclingBarrister]

The belief has to be reasonable and the fact that he had been granted a JD indicates there is a reasonable case to be made. And he has said he doesn't believe an offence will be committed and that any fines will be repaid in due course.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/16/london-cab-firm-drivers-bus-lanes

He may be wrong but that is his belief.

No I think, for the purpose of the SCA2007, his belief must be honestly held in a subjective sense, rather than being reaosnable. This would actually be to his credit in running the kind of defence you suggest he might.

But i think he has a belief that the regulations re bus lanes are discriminatory and wrong. He might even have a belief that a High Court Judge will find the same. But he is aware and has a belief that his drivers will or might committ an offence as the law stands. Whatever he thinks of the law, whatever remedy he thinks a High Court Judge might order (remedy under JD are at the discretion of the court) he still believes a criminal offence will be committed and a penalty provided, hence his policy of indemnity.

His best defence would be he honestly thought that JD procedings would result in a particular remedy which would be retrospecively applied so as to quash a conviction. But even then, under the SCA2007 all that needs to be shown is that, at the time the statement was made, it was capable of encouraging a crime (meanaing one existing at that time) and and he believed it would be committed...

 

[classic33]

His best defence would be he honestly thought that JD procedings would result in a particular remedy which would be retrospecively applied so as to quash a conviction. But even then, under the SCA2007 all that needs to be shown is that, at the time the statement was made, it was capable of encouraging a crime (meanaing one existing at that time) and and he believed it would be committed...[/quote]

Well if no offence could/would be committed, why does he feel the need to cover for his drivers if they are caught breaking the law.

 

[CyclingBarrister]

Quite!

 

[Miquel In De Rain]

Interesting points.....whatever the legal issues, I will never use Addison Lee again because of Mr Griffin's views on cyclists.

A lot of my work colleagues seem to have the same opinion.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Some photos on twitter

 

[Sore Thumb]

News article regarding the Die-In on Road CC.

http://road.cc/content/news/57094-cyclists-converge-addison-lees-offices-die-protest


The sad thing is, that he still doesn't get it.



Also, a good report by the Guardian Bike Blog.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...on-lee-protest-boycott-chairman?newsfeed=true