| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| O'dear http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29721 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Cabby John 1 [ Sat Aug 20, 2016 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | O'dear |
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... s-11774979 Taxi driver strike leader loses second appeal against suspension of his taxi licence Mathab Khan was suspended by Cardiff council in February after it found he had refused to pick up a fare The chairman of Cardiff’s taxi cab association has been ordered to pay £1,425 legal costs after losing a second appeal against a decision to suspend his taxi licence for 10 days. Mr Khan’s initial appeal was thrown out by Cardiff Magistrates’ Court in April. At Friday’s second appeal – during which Mr Khan broke down in tears at one point – Cardiff Crown Court heard the council had received a complaint about him refusing a short fare from the city centre to Claude Road in Roath. Complaint to council Samantha Williams and Jacqueline O’Brien Liddiard said they approached Mr Khan’s taxi at around 2.15am on September 27 last year as it stood at the rank on Churchill Way. Miss Williams said that when she told the driver where they wanted to go he said: “I am booked”, and indicated it was too short a distance anyway. “I said, ‘How can you be booked if your light is on? His reply was ‘not far, not far’,” she told the court. “I asked him what he meant by that. He wound up the window and turned the light off.” The two women memorised the taxi’s licence number and complained to the council. The council’s public protection committee subsequently issued the suspension. The penalty has been suspended during the appeals process. Mr Khan, of Heol Esgyn, Cyncoed, told Friday’s hearing his light was off and the women had incorrectly memorised the number. Cardiff Bus supervisor Miss Williams denied his claim that she was “sozzled” at the time and said she had a good memory for figures. She added that she and her friend had to walk home as a result of the refusal. "I was so hurt when I was blamed for something I didn’t do" Mr Khan said he would never refuse a fare for being too short a distance, and at the time had been especially aware of the problem after a series of sex assaults in the city and publicity about complaints from women that taxis were refusing short fares. He denied ever being approached by the women and said he was booked and waiting, without his light on, a short way from the taxi rank in Churchill Way. Bar worker Kyle John told the court he pre-booked Mr Khan’s taxi but was delayed getting to it because it was such a busy night in town with Wales playing England at Twickenham in the World Cup. Mr John said when he got to the taxi in Churchill Way Mr Khan had taken another fare, a couple going to Barry, and also told him he had already refused another fare – although he did not say it was two women. Questioned by Claire Wilks, representing Cardiff Council, Mr Khan broke down in tears at one point saying: “I was so hurt when I was blamed for something I didn’t do.” He added: “I did not have my light on because I was waiting for Mr John... I am a 55-year-old man driving a taxi with honesty and integrity.” "Unreliable witness at times" Throwing out Mr Khan’s appeal Recorder Christopher Felstead said he and Justices Michelle Fryer and Pat Hallett had found him a “confusing and unreliable witness at times". “We considered Miss Williams and Miss O’Brien Liddiard to be reliable and the defendant to be confusing and unreliable at times.” Ordering Mr Khan to pay the council costs of £1,425, the Recorder said they accepted the women had correctly memorised the taxi licence number and that Mr Khan had his taxi light on, stating he was open for fares, when they approached him. “The evidence of Mr Kyle John does not in any way undermine the evidence of Miss Williams and Miss O’Brien Liddiard and we note from hiss evidence that he was told by Mr Khan that he had refused a fare.” Mr Khan, chair of the city’s Hackney Carriage Association, told the court he thought the costs awarded against him were excessive. “I will appeal against this decision,” he said. |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Sat Aug 20, 2016 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
well what did he expect of course he's going to get a costly bill and appealing against that could push it further I suppose he thought being a big cheese in the union protected him from the enforcement officer well he's learnt that lesson the hard way 
|
|
| Author: | Nidge2 [ Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap, he did wrong now accept the punishment. 
|
|
| Author: | cabby john [ Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
He was the chap that got the £1.1 million reimbursed to the drivers. Unfortunately being a thorn in their side then they were always going to go after him. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
Cabby John 1 wrote: Mr Khan, of Heol Esgyn, Cyncoed, told Friday’s hearing his light was off and the women had incorrectly memorised the number. ](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
cabby john wrote: He was the chap that got the £1.1 million reimbursed to the drivers. Unfortunately being a thorn in their side then they were always going to go after him. His witness didn't help when he confirmed the driver said he had refused a job. |
|
| Author: | cabby john [ Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
Sussex wrote: cabby john wrote: He was the chap that got the £1.1 million reimbursed to the drivers. Unfortunately being a thorn in their side then they were always going to go after him. His witness didn't help when he confirmed the driver said he had refused a job. I noted that! You would have to know the layout of " The Rank "- At that time of the morning it is NOT an orderly queue, as such the cabs are literally parking all over the road as it is technically a dead end. I would think that although he might have be queueing to join the rank - he might not as such actually been on the designated/marked out legal part of the rank, thus imo might take the accusation out of the equation that he was actually operating off of the rank. In the event of him not being on the rank then the fact that he refused a fare (with his hire light off) would have been in order. I feel that they have missed a very important point of proving that he was (actually) on the rank! |
|
| Author: | Cabby John 1 [ Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
cabby john wrote: Sussex wrote: cabby john wrote: He was the chap that got the £1.1 million reimbursed to the drivers. Unfortunately being a thorn in their side then they were always going to go after him. His witness didn't help when he confirmed the driver said he had refused a job. I noted that! You would have to know the layout of " The Rank "- At that time of the morning it is NOT an orderly queue, as such the cabs are literally parking all over the road as it is technically a dead end. I would think that although he might have be queueing to join the rank - he might not as such actually been on the designated/marked out legal part of the rank, thus imo might take the accusation out of the equation that he was actually operating off of the rank. In the event of him not being on the rank then the fact that he refused a fare (with his hire light off) would have been in order. I feel that they have missed a very important point of proving that he was (actually) on the rank! Quote: Samantha Williams and Jacqueline O’Brien Liddiard said they approached Mr Khan’s taxi at around 2.15am on September 27 last year as it stood at the rank on Churchill Way. Quote: He denied ever being approached by the women and said he was booked and waiting, without his light on, a short way from the taxi rank in Churchill Way.
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sun Aug 21, 2016 5:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
What I can't understand is why they didn't take a picture of the cab instead of writing the number down. Would have answered all the questions the court needed. |
|
| Author: | cabby john [ Sun Aug 21, 2016 7:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
Sussex wrote: What I can't understand is why they didn't take a picture of the cab instead of writing the number down. Would have answered all the questions the court needed. Agreed.........and then you get (as in another case in the City)......."We had to walk home"! Absolute b*ll*cks, as there would have been 100s of Cabs & PH working in and around the City that night that would have got them home. They wanted a scapegoat, and got one. |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
Sussex wrote: What I can't understand is why they didn't take a picture of the cab instead of writing the number down. Would have answered all the questions the court needed. two p*ss@d up women having the sense to think of that I think John is probably right though that it was a bit odd that they didn't just walk up to another taxi if the rank was close by or even wait at the rank for one to arrive |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: O'dear |
The bit that makes me think is how many people would be prepared to attend two court hearings and give evidence, over what is a minor crime/matter. My experience is that many people would do almost anything to attend court and give evidence, as it can be viewed as quite a daunting task. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|