Taxi Driver Online

Once again another erudite response from BtK.

However I thank you for drawing my attention to something I said which may cause some confusion.

When I referred to "Scottish Numpties" I was of course referring only to the small band of thickwits masquerading as taxi drivers on the Taxi Forum, the former Fasties.

I was not referring to Scottish cabbies in general who are by and large simply guys and gals going about their business in trying economic circumstances and most of whom would, like me, deprecate the childish meanderings of of posters like BtK.

Well I'm glad we got that cleared up Jimbob. Now let that be a lesson to you to please read what you post at least once "BEFORE" you post. Look at the trouble it could cause.

Again, I reiterate! A nobody trying desperately to be a somebody! Rather sad really.

It doesn't matter what you do, even here they tell us it's a civil matter.

Sussex, I'm confused. Didn't you mean to say more reason to pursue the criminal route? Because a criminal conviction would have ramifications for his standing with the FSA?

Yeah, but by next week if everything goes according to plan it will be in the papers. Then every scrote will know they can bump a taxi without fear of being charged.

TBH I think that's the best way forward.

Tell his boss and his punters what a thief he is.

Go for a civil action at the same time. The burden of proof is lower in civil law ie The 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond all reasonable doubt.' So it's easier to get judgement if your case is presented well.

What about the small claims court? It costs about £30 to issue a summons and if he doesn't reply within the stipulated time you win automatically. You may not still get the money but he will at least have a ccj recorded against him.

A civil route would still affect his FSA standing, and be more easier to achieve.

But if criminal is the best way you see, go for it.

Here's the official response to the letter to the Chief Constable from Inspector Lyle.

On Tuesday 14 July, 2009, I contacted Neil Allan, Procurator Fiscal, and made him aware of the incident you refer to in your letter to the Chief Constable.

He stated that the police officer was correct in his assessment of the situation as a civil matter.

It is the opinion of Mr Allan that, as the passenger had the means to pay the fare, criminal intent could not be proved by the police.

Having cash on him protects the thief by assigning him automatic intent to pay.

Which presumably means that a shoplifter with cash on him is also entitled to the same defence.

Except he's not. When he walks out of the shop having not paid, he has committed a criminal offence, and is usually charged accordingly.

How is it that the same does not apply in the case of taxi drivers and refusniks?

My assertion always was that when he walked away from the car having not paid, and in the full knowledge through the request of both the officer and the driver to do so, intent not to pay was established. He has committed a criminal offence having demonstrated both Actus Reus and Mens Rea as required for a formal charge of theft to be made.

What the Fiscal is saying is that intent is determined at a fixed point. Once fixed it can't be changed. For example a shoplifter could claim that although he took the item, his intent when he went into the store was to pay for it, he is entitled to his claim that he didn't fulfill the test for Mens Rea and that he shouldn't be charged with the criminal offence of shoplifting.

Isn't the reality that a shoplifter has been deemed to have stolen when he has gone beyond the point he is expected to pay for the goods i.e. when he left the store without paying. It's once outside the store that the offence is committed.

This is why the English Statute is written in this way, but even in Common Law in Scotland the same principle is established with shoplifting. It sets the precedent and is effectively the template for how this offence should have been proceeded with.

The Police and the Fiscal are getting this wrong, even under the existing Law.

Perhaps the interesting thing is that the Fiscal maintains that the fact he had money at the outset demonstrates a lack of intent to commit the crime, yet the officer didn't establish whether he had any cash on him until AFTER he had rushed to his judgement that it was a civil matter.

Doesn't it seem that this Police officer, and I guess others too, would view it as a civil matter in any case no matter what the specific circumstances are?

Doesn't this mean that the Law and the Police in matters like this are programmed to protect the perpetrator and not the victim?