Taxi Driver Online

It doesn't say if the vehicle was licensed, but what's the betting?

Taxi owner guilty of manslaughter

The owner of a taxi firm has been convicted of manslaughter after a faulty tyre caused the death of one of his customers.
Simon Scotton, 24, of Bedgrove, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, died in the minibus crash on the A41 Berkhamsted bypass in Hertfordshire in July 2002.

On Thursday, minibus driver Zafar Aqbal, 50, of Aylesbury, was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

Bus owner Mohammed Yaqoob, 45, was found guilty of manslaughter.

Yaqoob, of Aylesbury, and Aqbal were told by the judge at St Albans Crown Court that they will face a jail term following the crash which happened as a group of friends were on their way back from a night at a comedy club.

The court heard that as the P-registered Toyota Hiace drove along the A41, a faulty tyre blew and it overturned, skidded onto its roof and came to rest in the central reservation.

Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer told the court the crash happened at 0130 BST on 21 July 2002 after Mr Scotton and his friends returned in two minibuses, hired from Falcon Cars, from a night out at the comedy club in Watford.

The Hiace was driven by Aqbal who had been a weekend driver for the company for the past three years.

Both he and Yaqoob, 45, told the police they had checked the tyre on the day of the crash.

Aqbal later told the jury he had not checked the tyres.

Judge Findlay Baker QC adjourned the case for pre-sentence reports but said it was inevitably going to lead to a custodial sentence.

After the case Mr Scotton's father Robert said: "It has been 21 months, a very long time. It was very harrowing for everyone who knew Simon to have to live the nightmare of 21 July 2002.

"During the trial it came to light that the minibus in which Simon died had been used to transport special needs children only a few days earlier, and that Falcon had a contract with Buckinghamshire County Council to provide this service on a regular basis.

"If the tyre had not blown on the Sunday morning, I dread to think what might have happened to those kids on the Monday."

What can you say.
We all hope that the trade keeps up to date with service,tyres ect,but when this happens,it shows you how vulnerable the trade is when people,take short cuts in looking after the vehicles.
Sad.

R v MOHAMMED YAQOOB (2005)

[2005] EWCA Crim 1269

CA (Crim Div) (Thomas LJ, Calvert-Smith J, Recorder of Cardiff) 26/8/2005

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE - ROAD TRAFFIC - SENTENCING

DISQUALIFICATION PERIODS : FRESH EVIDENCE : JURY DIRECTIONS : MANSLAUGHTER BY GROSS NEGLIGENCE : MINIBUSES : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : TAXIS : ADDUCING FRESH EVIDENCE : DETERRENT SENTENCES : MINICABS : PART WORN TYRES : PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES : PASSENGER VEHICLES

It was incumbent on all operators of minicabs and minibuses to exercise due care to see that their vehicles were frequently inspected and well-maintained. Where, as in the instant case, a deterrent sentence was not required, a sentence of four years' imprisonment was more than within the general range of sentences for manslaughter by gross negligence due to a failure to properly maintain a minibus.

The appellant (Y) appealed against his conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence and against his sentence of four years' imprisonment and a driving disqualification for four years. Y was a partner in a taxi firm and was responsible for arrangements for the inspection and maintenance of a minibus which had overturned after its tyre burst, killing one of its passengers. As a result Y was convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence.

The driver was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment with a driving disqualification for three years. Y sought to (1) adduce fresh expert evidence on the cause of the tyre failure; and submitted that (2) the judge should have directed the jury, in relation to the direction on gross negligence, that in deciding whether the conduct amounted to gross negligence, they had to be sure that the conduct was not merely one that had disregard for life and safety, but that it showed indifference to the risk of death; (3) there was no evidential or legal basis for the prosecution case that the owner of a public service vehicle owed a higher duty than that set out in the regulations applicable to public service vehicles and it was not for the jury to assess the level of duty owed; (4) the prosecution should not have been allowed to advance the case that if part-worn tyres were used on a vehicle, then there should have been more frequent inspections, as it was perfectly lawful to use part-worn tyres.

HELD: (1) There was no proper explanation for the failure to adduce the expert evidence at trial. To permit Y to adduce the fresh evidence would be to subvert the trial process. It was incumbent on the defence to consider the expert evidence well before the trial and re-trial. This was not a case in which there were new learnings or advances in science.

(2) The direction given by the judge was given in a case where it was obvious to the reasonable person in the position of Y that the minibus would be travelling on very fast roads at speeds where tyre failure could well result in a fatality. There could be no doubt that the only risk engaged was the risk of death and the reference to the risk to safety was superfluous, R v Misra (Amit) (2004) EWCA Crim 2375 , (2005) 1 Cr App R 21 applied.

There was no misdirection. (3) It was entirely open to the jury to find that there was a duty to inspect and maintain beyond that required for an MOT test, council inspections and other duties imposed by regulation. It was well within the competence of a jury to assess that duty without any expert evidence; these were not technical issues beyond their competence and they did not need expert help.

The judge properly left the matter to the jury. (4) Y's submission was wholly without merit: it was obvious that the use of part-used tyres necessitated more frequent inspection than new tyres. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. (5) It was incumbent on all operators of minicabs and minibuses to exercise due care to see that their vehicles were frequently inspected and well-maintained. There was nothing which required a deterrent sentence in this type of case and the appeal against sentence was allowed.

Where a deterrent sentence was not required, a sentence of four years' imprisonment was more than within the general range of sentences for manslaughter of this type, R v Kite (1996) 2 Cr App R (S) 295 considered. Taking into account Y's good character, the way in which he had run his company for 12 years without incident and his personal circumstances, the appropriate sentence was two and a half years' imprisonment. The period of disqualification should not have been higher than that of the driver and was reduced to three years.

Appeal allowed in part.

Counsel:
For the appellant: Andrew Campbell-Tiech QC
For the respondent: Stewart Trimmer
LTL 30/8/2005 (Unreported elsewhere)