Boycott Addison Lee

To clarify; TfL's injunction was successful. The only part that failed was the request for Griffin to withdraw original letter. This is the part Addison Lee released.

It seems to me that even that is put on dodgy ground by this bit

Criminality on the face of the legislation

1. As stated above, the defendants accept or at least do not dispute that, on the face of the legislation, it is an offence for a PHV driver to drive in a bus lane marked as available for use by taxis. Any PHV driver who does so would, on the face of the legislation, commit a criminal offence contrary to s. 8 of the 1984 Act.


2. Anyone who does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence intending to encourage or assist its commission himself commits an offence pursuant to s. 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, unless he can avail himself of the defence of “acting reasonably” pursuant to s. 50 of that Act.


3. In Drake v Morgan [1978] QB 56, Forbes J had to consider whether a union could lawfully indemnify its members in respect of fines imposed for criminal offences. It held on the facts that the union could do so, but only because the indemnity had been given after the criminal offences had been committed. Forbes J said this at 60-61:
“While there may be nothing untoward in one man agreeing to pay another’s fine after the offence is committed, it seemed to me that an agreement to indemnify a man against any fines he might incur in the future if he pursued a certain course of conduct was open to the gravest of objections.
Both counsel agree that there is no decided authority on this point and this does not surprise me, because it seems to me almost self-evident. To say effectively: “Go out and picket. Never mind if you commit an offence. We will pay your fine,” is in all probability incitement to commit an offence, and certainly aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring one.”


4. Forbes J’s reasoning was followed by Scott J (as he then was) in Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1986] QB 20, at 77. Scott J held that the resolution in that case, to indemnify members who might commit offences while on the picket line against any fines imposed, was contrary to public policy and void. Although the terms of the order made in that case do not appear from the report, it appears that Scott J was prepared to grant an injunction restraining the South Wales union from making any payment pursuant to that resolution.


5. It was Ms Demetriou QC’s submission that the indemnity contained in the Notice was not unlawful and that the authorities relied upon by TFL are inapplicable because, in particular, they concern indemnification in respect of action which indisputably amounted to a criminal offence whereas the present case is plainly in a different category. In particular, she submitted that the basis for the claim for judicial review is that the TROs are unlawful and that their breach does not therefore amount to a criminal offence; and that TFL’s submissions therefore beg the very question raised by the claim for judicial review (and which would be raised as a defence to any criminal prosecution against the defendants for issuing the Notice). Further, she submitted that, as TFL accepts, the defendants would have a further defence of “acting reasonably” under s.50 of the Serious Crime Act 2007; and that it follows that, if prosecuted under s.44 of that Act, they could rely by way of defence on their reasonably held belief that the TROs were unlawful even if their EU law defence were rejected.
   In my judgment, these submissions suffer from a number of flaws which it is unnecessary to examine in detail. However, it seems to me that the fundamental flaw is that the indemnity given in the Notice covers “..any fines or other liabilities that may result from using the bus lanes as a result of this advice..” If Eventech succeeds in the judicial review proceedings, there will be no valid and enforceable fines or other liabilities. Thus, the indemnity can only sensibly apply in circumstances where an offence has been committed and therefore is contrary to public policy and void.

Basicly, I read that as saying that since the letter has already gone out, there's little point in pulling it, but that if any of the drivers are charged by the police for driving in the bus lanes (as a criminal charge) then our mate Griffin could now find himself charged under s. 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, and that he's also been put on notice that a 'defence of “acting reasonably” pursuant to s. 50 of that Act' would not be successful.

I would suggest that the above is in fact a coded way of the Judge saying "I can't tell you to pull the letter, but if you don't there are big consequences'

But then again, IANAL