Taxi Driver Online

Taxi driver refused to pick up two visually impaired people and their guide dogs

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-ne ... up-1992028

Syed Al Miah has had his licence revoked in East Devon and has been fined £5,000

A taxi driver who refused to transport guide dogs and their visually impaired owners has been fined and had his hackney carriage driver licence revoked.

Syed Al Miah recently appeared at Exeter Magistrates Court after launching an appeal against East Devon District Council’s decision to take away his licence following a complaint.

It was alleged he had refused to transport two visually impaired people and their guide dogs in his vehicle after they had requested a taxi to take them from a hotel to the train station in December 2017.

The court was told when the taxi driver arrived at the hotel, he informed hotel staff and the two customers he would not take the dogs and drove away.

It was heard Miah, of Birchwood Avenue, Weston Super Mare, had changed his story on several occasions.

At interview he said he was scared of the dogs, but at a licensing hearing he stated for safety reasons he believed his vehicle not to be big enough, despite it being licensed to carry five passengers.

At the appeal hearing he claimed when arriving at the hotel he wasn’t sure if he had attended the correct job.

During an investigation into the complaint by the council, officers established he had not operated as a taxi driver in East Devon at any point since obtaining his licence from the district council in 2016, but instead had worked from North Somerset where the incident occurred.

East Devon’s licensing sub-committee decided to revoke the taxi driver’s licence as they felt he was no longer considered as a fit and proper person to hold the licence due to his actions, and he did not operate as a taxi driver in East Devon.

Sting in the tail there - one of the reasons deemed not fit and proper was because working cross-border, but not clear whether it's an HC or PH.

And presumably he was fined by the magistrates and appealed the council's decision at two separate court hearings, or can the civil/criminal aspects be dealt with at the same time? Not entirely clear from the article.

The way that I read it is this. He appeared before the council and had his licence revoked. He appealed to the magistrates who upheld the decision. as for the £5,000 I think this is newspaper speak for he got a fine and costs were awarded to the Council and the total came to £5,000

_________________
Grandad,

You could well be right about the paper reporting costs as a 'fine', but if part of the £5k *was* a fine then the word 'fine' implies a criminal prosecution for the offence of refusing a guide dog - I mean, it is a criminal offence, isn't it?

So can the magistrates court deal with the civil process - ie the driver's appeal against the council revoking his licence - and the criminal prosecution at the same time?

I mean, they are separate processes on paper and in theory, but in practical terms could well be dealt with by the court at the same time...

The court has not dealt with both at the same time if you take your time to read and absorb what the report says.

Haven't got time to post these stories *and* "read and absorb" them at the same time, so would be grateful if you could explain

Actually, there is another part of the article that I'd missed out, which does specifically say that the £5,000 was the council's costs:*

So maybe there wasn't a fine at all, and the driver was never prosecuted for the offence, which would thus answer my question, and then presumably the newspaper's use of the word 'fine' was simply a red herring.



But note that the article also says that the Equality Act makes a refusal a strict liability *offence*, which the driver could thus be prosecuted for. (The words 'offence' and 'fine' specifically relate to criminal acts - councils have no power to mete out fines. Strict liability simply means that you don't have to actually intend to do the act in question for an offence to take place - it's like speeding, so even if you make a mistake you can still be prosecuted.)

So is it possible that the driver was never actually prosecuted for the offence, and that the word 'fine' and the talk of an 'offence' are just red herrings?

So maybe the driver just had his licence revoked by the council and then appealed to the magistrates, and there was no criminal prosecution for the offence, and thus no 'fine'?

*In my defence, it was one of those nightmare 'Live' sites, which can be very difficult to navigate/know when you're at the bottom of the article etc, and can freeze/crash my browser. Not that many of these newspaper websites are particularly easy to navigate with a modest laptop and internet connection, but the 'Live' ones tend to be the worst. The same template is also used by other newspapers that don't use the Live name, such as the Daily Mirror and Daily Record. They're all part of the same publishing group and thus use the same website design template - think it's what used to be called Trinity Mirror, but think they've changed their name now.

The individual will have had to pay a fine and victim surcharge, or a conditional discharge and victim surcharge. More likely the former.

On top of that the court will make a costs order for either all, or part of, the councils costs.

I suspect the final bill including costs, fine and surcharge is where they get the £5,000 from.

_________________
IDFIMH

An alternative version of this story is perfectly clear about the case being about revocation and the £5k being costs rather than a fine:

(Extract only)

Weston taxi driver loses licence after refusing to drive two visually impaired people

http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/ ... -1-5690965

A Weston-super-Mare taxi driver who refused to transport two visually impaired people and their guide dogs has lost a court appeal against having his licence revoked.

Syed Al Miah, of Birchwood Avenue, was also ordered to pay costs of £5,000 after East Devon District Council successfully defended the appeal.

Miah had not operated as a taxi driver in East Devon at any point since obtaining his licence from its district council in 2016 and instead worked in North Somerset.



Of course, some of the reported guide dog refusals are about criminal prosecutions for the offence under the Equality Act, while some are about fit and proper status, suspensions and revocations. And sometimes there's an overlap.

This older case is at least a bit more clear about the difference between the two processes:

(Extracts only)

Stoke-on-Trent taxi driver fined for refusing guide dog

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-s ... e-42873108

A taxi driver who refused to carry a registered blind woman because of her guide dog has been fined.

Zaheer Ahmed Sadiq, 40, admitted breaching the Equality Act when he drove off in Longton in Stoke-on-Trent.

Sadiq, of of Upper Belgrave Road, Normacot, was fined £100 at North Staffordshire Justice Centre.

Under the Equality Act 2010, it is illegal for a private hire vehicle to refuse to take a disabled person because they have an assistance dog, unless they have an exemption certificate on medical grounds.

Sadiq was also ordered to pay £557 in costs and a £30 victim surcharge.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council's licensing and registration panel will be meeting to review his taxi licence.

So you think there was a criminal prosecution *and* a licence revocation?

The other version of the case I posted seems to suggest there was simply a revocation, which I suppose is a possibility...

No, you are right and I should have read more than the headline.

There was no fine, of VS, just costs.

I suspect the costs were more than £5,000, but the court rounded it down.

_________________
IDFIMH

If the newspaper article hadn't used the word 'fine' and talked about an offence when there actually didn't seem to be a prosecution, then most of this thread would be unnecessary