What Can I Give My Dog For Tooth Pain?
Animals & Nature0 min ago
A section in an act
I would really appreciate some help on this:
In the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 section 1 'this section applies to a vehicle which' section 1(1)(a) 'is a public service vehicle or railway passenger vehicle, and'. Section 1(1)(b) 'is being use for the principal purpose of carrying passengers for the whole or part of a journey to or from a designated sporting event'
Does the word 'and' in section 1(1)(a) mean that a public service vehicle must be primarily carrying passengers to a designated sporting event in order for that act to apply to that vehicle? Also, is the word 'principal' as important? I would assume it is.
Let me know if I should elaborate. TIA
In the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 section 1 'this section applies to a vehicle which' section 1(1)(a) 'is a public service vehicle or railway passenger vehicle, and'. Section 1(1)(b) 'is being use for the principal purpose of carrying passengers for the whole or part of a journey to or from a designated sporting event'
Does the word 'and' in section 1(1)(a) mean that a public service vehicle must be primarily carrying passengers to a designated sporting event in order for that act to apply to that vehicle? Also, is the word 'principal' as important? I would assume it is.
Let me know if I should elaborate. TIA
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bookboo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes it means exactly that. A coach that is hired to take supporters to a match is covered. The 'principle' use is the transport of the supporters , there may well be stewards and officials on the same coach but the 'principle' use is to transport supporters.
it would not apply to a regular coach or bus service that just happened to have some supporters on board as well as the other passengers.
Possibly more applicable to trains where some trains may be chartered specially for the match , but others were just the normal timetable ones .
It would apply to the special trains but not to the normal time table ones (even though they may well have a lot of supporters on board)
it would not apply to a regular coach or bus service that just happened to have some supporters on board as well as the other passengers.
Possibly more applicable to trains where some trains may be chartered specially for the match , but others were just the normal timetable ones .
It would apply to the special trains but not to the normal time table ones (even though they may well have a lot of supporters on board)
Yes, quite right Eddie.
But I have known prosecutions under these acts to be launched when (say) a train where 90% of its passengers were travelling to a match (and the prosecution can show that this was so). The spirit of the Act is to prevent trouble occurring in connection with sporting events. (This particular Act relates to all sporting events. There is another Act with more provisions relevant specifically to football).
If a prosecution is launched as I outlined above there will undoubtedly be a legal argument between the defence and the prosecution as to whether the law applies or not. This will be heard by the Magistrates (these offences are “summary” offences, which means they can only be heard by Magistrates). In making their decision the Bench will refer (or more specifically be referred by both sides) to precedent case law, usually set by higher courts, to help them decide.
The problem with many laws such as this is the interpretation to be placed on the phrase “principle purpose” as it is not defined in the Act. It could be argued that because the vast majority of the passengers are travelling to the match, then that is the vehicle’s Principle purpose. Equally, it could be argued that when the vehicle was originally scheduled to run the match may not have even been scheduled to take place. So how could its principle purpose be to transport people to the match?
It makes for a fascinating argument (and nice fat fees for m’Learned Friends!)
But I have known prosecutions under these acts to be launched when (say) a train where 90% of its passengers were travelling to a match (and the prosecution can show that this was so). The spirit of the Act is to prevent trouble occurring in connection with sporting events. (This particular Act relates to all sporting events. There is another Act with more provisions relevant specifically to football).
If a prosecution is launched as I outlined above there will undoubtedly be a legal argument between the defence and the prosecution as to whether the law applies or not. This will be heard by the Magistrates (these offences are “summary” offences, which means they can only be heard by Magistrates). In making their decision the Bench will refer (or more specifically be referred by both sides) to precedent case law, usually set by higher courts, to help them decide.
The problem with many laws such as this is the interpretation to be placed on the phrase “principle purpose” as it is not defined in the Act. It could be argued that because the vast majority of the passengers are travelling to the match, then that is the vehicle’s Principle purpose. Equally, it could be argued that when the vehicle was originally scheduled to run the match may not have even been scheduled to take place. So how could its principle purpose be to transport people to the match?
It makes for a fascinating argument (and nice fat fees for m’Learned Friends!)
Thank you both so much.
'it would not apply to a regular coach or bus service that just happened to have some supporters on board as well as the other passengers.' So I was right then.
Basically I have to decide if a crime has been committed in relation to alcohol in the following scenario: coach operator is booked to take passengers to a flower show (not designated sporting event). One more passenger (a friend) turns up in order to go to a designated sporting event and is in possession of alcohol and gets drunk on the coach. I assumed that even though the coach did take the drunkard to the sporting event. He was in fact booked to take the rest of his passengers to a different event. Therefore no crime had been committed by either men ie: coach driver for allowing alcohol on board and passenger for being in possession of and being intoxicated.
'it would not apply to a regular coach or bus service that just happened to have some supporters on board as well as the other passengers.' So I was right then.
Basically I have to decide if a crime has been committed in relation to alcohol in the following scenario: coach operator is booked to take passengers to a flower show (not designated sporting event). One more passenger (a friend) turns up in order to go to a designated sporting event and is in possession of alcohol and gets drunk on the coach. I assumed that even though the coach did take the drunkard to the sporting event. He was in fact booked to take the rest of his passengers to a different event. Therefore no crime had been committed by either men ie: coach driver for allowing alcohol on board and passenger for being in possession of and being intoxicated.
the following is an extract from Scottish Citylink's Ts&Cs:-
45. Alcoholic drinks. Passengers are not permitted by law to take alcoholic drinks onto coaches for the purpose of consuming them on board, nor to drink such drinks on the coach or to remain on the coach when in the opinion of the driver they are under the influence of alcoholic drink.
I witnessed this in action at Fort William last week, when a very intoxicated woman (and her bottle of Bell's) were forcibly ejected into the care of a passing constable.
Is this a piece of legislation peculiar to Scotland?
45. Alcoholic drinks. Passengers are not permitted by law to take alcoholic drinks onto coaches for the purpose of consuming them on board, nor to drink such drinks on the coach or to remain on the coach when in the opinion of the driver they are under the influence of alcoholic drink.
I witnessed this in action at Fort William last week, when a very intoxicated woman (and her bottle of Bell's) were forcibly ejected into the care of a passing constable.
Is this a piece of legislation peculiar to Scotland?
1 to 12 of 12
