Taxi Driver Online

Plymouth taxi driver accused of sexually assaulting a woman passenger

Saturday, 26 June, 2010

A taxi driver has appeared in court charged with sexually assaulting a woman passenger.

Romanian Remus Dascalescu attended Plymouth Magistrates' Court charged with indecently touching the woman without her consent on March 16.

Angela Furniss, for the Crown Prosecution Service, said that Dascalescu was working for a city private hire company when he allegedly touched the woman in the front seat late at night.

She claimed that he was then accused of trying to touch another woman sitting in the back seat.

Speaking through an interpreter, the married 33-year-old from Canterbury Drive, Whitleigh, asked for the case to be adjourned so he could get legal advice.

Now a hackney carriage driver, Dascalescu did not formally enter a plea but told District Judge Paul Farmer he was not guilty.

Judge Farmer released him on unconditional bail until July 7.

Source; thisisplymouth.co.uk

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

I wonder if the LA will envoke Section 61 (2B) in this case.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Oh how I wish they would, but they can't. Plymouth does not come under the '76 we have the '75 and they can't do anything until and if he is convicted.

From the 1975 Act

19.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1847 or in this Act, the Council may suspend or revoke, or (on application therefor under section 46 of the Act of 1847 or section 9 (Licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles) of this Act, as the case may be) refuse to renew the licence of a driver of a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle on any of the following grounds:—
(a) that he has since the grant of the licence—
(i) been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence; or
(ii) been convicted of an offence under or has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1847 or of this Act; or
(b) any other reasonable cause.

Though the wording is the same (or at least similar) the SI that allowed action by authorities under the '76 did not quote the '75 so this "person" who was driving for "Taxifast" can change his PH badge for Hackney and carry on regardless until he's in Court.

The local Hackney Association (PLTA) continue to request adoption by the Plymouth City Council of the 1976 act.

Care should always be taken - no matter which act of Parliament is force - that the innocent are not suspended or revoked on spurious accusations.

In this particular case he would be better off suspended (strictly my own opinion).

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Sorry, meant to post this earlier....

Taxi man accused of assault
A TAXI driver has denied sexually assaulting a young woman passenger.

Romanian Remus Dascalescu pleaded not guilty when he appeared at Plymouth Magistrates' Court charged with indecently touching a 19-year-old woman without her consent on March 16.

The court heard Dascalescu was working for a city private hire company when he allegedly touched the woman in the front seat late at night.

Eoin McCarthy, for the prosecution, said that the woman was sat in the front seat Dascalescu twice put his hand on her inner thigh.

He said the taxi driver then tried to touch another woman sitting in the back seat, although no further assault is alleged.

Mr McCarthy said Dascalescu then locked the doors and propositioned the two women, who had been drinking, before letting them out in the ferry port.

Speaking through an interpreter, the married 33-year-old from Canterbury Drive, Whitleigh, strongly refuted the charges, and chose to proceed with the case even though he is still waiting to get legal representation.

Magistrates decided the case should be heard at the crown court.

Dascalescu, now a hackney-carriage driver, was given on unconditional bail until September 1, when he will appear for committal.


Source Plymouth Herald.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

1. his arms must be longer than mine

2. he needed an interpreter in court?

Seems they (the foreigners) all drag 1 in to court when they're in trouble.

Shouldnt be doing the feckin job if they cant converse in the required language.

Ah.

Another CRB 'pass'.

Quality.

Cabbie denies sexual assault

Thursday, September 02, 2010, 07:00

A taxi driver accused of sexually assaulting a young woman passenger has had his case sent to Crown Court.

Romanian Remus Dascalescu faces trial by a judge and jury after denying a charge of indecently touching a 19-year-old woman without her consent on March 16.

Plymouth magistrates heard Dascalescu was working for a city private hire company when he allegedly touched the woman on her inner thigh in the front seat late at night in Plymouth.

Dascalescu, a married 33-year-old from Canterbury Drive in Whitleigh, was released on unconditional bail until he appears at the senior court on October 25.

Source; http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Ca ... ticle.html

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Are the Council going to issue him with a verbal warning then a letter then suspend him for a month under the Road Safety act??

Well Ladies and Gentlemen, it may be that the person here discussed is not the same chap, in my opinion that is as likely as a banker doing an interest free loan...
From the minutes of Plymouth City Councils Licensing (Hackney Carriage) Committee meeting 05 August 2010.

41.
LICENSED HACKNEY CARRIAGE DRIVER REVIEW OF LICENSE STATUS - RD (E3 AND E7)

◦View the reasons why item 41. is restricted
The Director for Community Services will submit a report on a licensed hackney carriage driver review of licence status.

Minutes:

The Committee having –



(a)
considered the report from the Director for Community Services;



(b)
considered a fax received from RDs solicitor requesting that the case be adjourned until after the outcome of the court case was known.




Agreed that the matter would be adjourned until more evidence was available to allow the committee to reach a decision.



(Councillors Bowie and Haydon had serious concerns about the decision of the committee and wanted their concerns were noted in the minutes on the grounds of public safety.)



Recommended that a special Licensing Hackney Carriage Committee meeting be scheduled to invite Licensing Officers, Legal Officers, relevant police representatives, Licensing Hackney Carriage Committee members and the Cabinet Member for Customer Services (Safer and Stronger Communities and Leisure, Culture and Sport) to look at the Policies and Procedures around items being submitted to the Licensing Hackney Carriage Committee where the evidence is not complete.



I would surmise that two named Councillors wanted the (elsewhere abused) access to Section 52. I would further surmise that the legal department have advised that they can't as "Section 52" only empowers Local Authorities under the 1976 Act and the City Council in Plymouth resolutely holds on to the 1975 Act.

So in some places Section 52 is abused - and - where it should be used - it is not available!

Don't you just love the legal system.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

If you have the local government act 1972 you dont need section 52 of the Road Safety act.



http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/ ... 20070_en_1


CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Blimey CC, that's a big Act to follow! Are you referring to 222 and 223? I have skimmed through and they seem the only relevant parts, and they are not that relevant. They give the power to take someone to Law, and in this case it already happening, courtesy of the CPS. What power does it give to the Local Authority to "Immediately" stop somebody from being a Hackney or PH Driver? Unless a Bench or a Judge impose bail conditions prohibiting driving for hire the "Innocent until proven Guilty" simply carries on until such time as he or she is standing in the dock.

This is the crux of the matter.

Used properly, and I stress PROPERLY, section 52 is an ideal tool.

Unfortunately it requires sharpening to use in a surgical way, because, as has recently been seen, with it's ambiguities, LAs can use it simply as a blunt instrument.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Section 222 (1)

My point is that LA's didnt need an additional power as granted by section 52.

Section 222 has been used successfully for years.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I am going to have to disagree - this does not give the power for immediate suspension and, in certain cases, this power is needed. A Council Officer (who may or may not be a Solicitor) can put a case before a Court - but you have to wait in some cases months before the aim is achieved.

If JP Benches or District Judges would impose sensible bail conditions it would not matter, but they don't.

The big thing about Section 52 is the immediacy.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

I have to disagree, it has been used many times over the years, unless of course you are suggesting rape accusations didnt occur before 2006? It doesnt take months or years, in actual fact section 52 is the biggest pile of sh*te this trade has swallowed in a very long time indeed.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin