Taxi Driver Online

JUDGMENT OF

SHERIFF ALISTAIR NOBLE

in the cause

KENNETH DONALD

against

THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL


Three days in court time, tens of thousands of pounds in Lawyer's fees and a ruling you wouldn't wipe your arse with.

IF Sherriff Noble, QC Armstrong and Avocate Blair did not know the outcome of this case before a shot was fired, I am a monkey's uncle.

Justice may have been seen to be done but is it Justice? What part, has truth or fairness played in Noble's ruling? The right decision but a ruling which is politically expedient for the council. The council was in the wrong, but the joke appears to be on anyone who expected to be treated equally and fairly under the law, like all those who applied in good faith for a licence.

Sheriff Noble takes almost five months, rules against the council making his decision public after the local elections, no political influence, simply a pure coincidence. He gives a deemed grant. Strange when you think the normal course of action is to remit the licence back to the council for reconsideration. However, the council still has time to appeal against Noble's decision. A decision which allows them to pull up the drawbridge, forcing anyone out with Kenneth Donald to take the council back into court to argue their case anew.

Now why would the council appeal against a decision which allows them to abuse applicant rights further under, the CGSA?


Your thoughts' about our "Justice" system gentlemen?

So what do you think the sheriff should have said in his ruling, Skull?

As far as can be seen, Noble's decision in favour of Kenneth Donald was the right decision. It was a just and fair decision – the end. The council can now get back to its business of abusing applicant rights to fairness and equality under the law.


I have no idea what Sheriff Noble should have said in his decision, but I know what it failed to deliver and who it has failed to protect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice#Concept_of_justice


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injustice

Well I wasn't expecting a 44-page judgement and legal reasoning, but in a couple of paragraphs what would you have liked the sheriff to have concluded?

Truely shafted my son Truely shafted

The council will now say "There is no demand now feck off you carpetbagging scum but we do promise in the future to allocate fairly and without discrimination",

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!

This thread isn't for idiots Dougie

According to Plato, “he doesn't know what justice is, but he knows what justice is not”.

Did Noble's ruling punish the council and prevent or discourage them from making future transgressions? Could any protections be drawn from his ruling in respect to the present sisted cases or future applicants? Compelling the council to act fairly when confronted with an application protecting the rights of the individual.

Justice is an abstract term it's a hard one to argue but as Plato pointed out “he knows what justice is not”.
In my mind at least, Noble failed to punish the council and to protect the rights of individuals from further abuse.

I am no Sheriff, and I couldn't begin to rewrite Noble's ruling but as I said before, I know what Noble failed to deliver and who it has failed to protect.


Now you tell me Dusty, who ultimately got punished and who has been afforded the protection of the law?

I once got afree bit of advice from a barrister.

He said, "Never confuse justice with the law"

Wise words.

_________________
Former taxi driver

Just keeping the outcome simple for us who don't give a schect for your post mortem of the courts ruling

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!

I've already used a similar quote from a lawyer on another thread.

I know all about how the system works. However, there are many who don't and believe that Justice is something to be expected when in court, but it could not be further from the truth.

The purpose of this thread is to debate what justice is not.

dougle da dunce

how is any one shafted ?

Obviously I agree that it's all pash, but under the current legislation and legal system I can't really see what more could have been expected from the sheriff.

He was asked to rule on the narrow issue of the status of a closed waiting list and the status of one applicant who wasn't on the list, which he did (and why CEC ever thought that would survive a legal challenge is beyond me).

So the council won't do that again, and costs were awarded against them.

Of course, that doesn't make the system as a whole much less unfair, but what I'm getting at is that you knew how the legal system worked so I'm not sure how you could have really expected much more from the ruling.

And obviously there could well be other grounds for a challenge, but that wasn't on the table for the sheriff to consider in this case.

And of course the other big facet to the whole thing is that ultimately the legislation and the decision whether or not to restrict numbers is a political decision rather than a legal one, thus in that respect not one for the courts to entertain.

The way the council issued those original plates has been deemed unlawful.

Therefore all those refused have a claim against the council for not issuing them a plate, and any loss of earning that that may had led to.

Maybe I missing something but to me the court outcome was a good one, and deferring it back to the council wouldn't have been a good move as all they would/could have done was stick everyone's name in a bag and pull one out who wins the plate prize.

In this case the chap with the balls to go to court has won, and well done to him. Let's hope some more take note.

Surely a new survey should be due now.

_________________
IDFIMH

There is no system whereby anyone who applies has an equal opportunity to a licence. The IPL is unlawful. The Halcrow survey concluded there was an unmet demand and recommended 30 licenses be issued. One hundred and eleven licenses were applied for in total and all with equal expectations of a licence. The fact is, the council had no grounds to refuse anyone irrespective of the order in which they applied. As the demand was never made public in the first place.

Indeed, but until things like the survey methodology and the basis of restricting more generally are challenged then there's not really much that can be done.

The sheriff proceeded on the assumption that there was a lawful licence quota and that a new ration of licences were to be granted, thus his only concern was how fair the procedure to allocate those licences was.

Of course, in view of the unfairness of the whole thing it's quite amusing in a way the way he refers to fairness in allocations policy and suchlike, but says nothing about the much wider unfairness of the whole charabanc.

Perhaps the judges don't really 'get' that aspect of it, but in any case their remit is normally narrower issues such as the status of waiting lists and other mind-numbing procedural matters such as that examined in Salteri.