Taxi Driver Online

Where to start with this. Don't think Sussex will be too impressed

But this demonstrates why I wouldn't want CCTV to be controlled by the powers that be - leave it to the driver

Taxi driver cleared of sexual attack says life was ‘turned upside down’

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/ne ... side-down/

A TAXI driver acquitted of sexual assault is battling to get his licence back after his life was ‘turned upside down’.

The driver, who wishes to remain anonymous, was found not guilty of sexual assault on a female at Chester Crown Court in November.

Since June 2016, cabbies across the town have been required to have cameras fitted in their vehicles to improve the safety of passengers and drivers.

Vehicle CCTV footage is kept for 14 days before being automatically overwritten.

The alleged sexual assault incident took place in 2017 but police, based in another local authority, failed to analyse the CCTV footage as they were unaware taxis in Warrington were fitted with cameras.

The driver, who had his licence revoked by Warrington Borough Council in March last year, has criticised the authority for not reinstating it following the acquittal.

He says: “I have not been working for more than nine months now and I have got a family to support.

“I have lost my livelihood. It has turned my life upside down.

“I want to get back to working as soon as possible.

“I have had a lot of support from the community and, in particular, our taxi trade representative through this ordeal – they have provided crucial emotional and financial support.”

Police insist there was enough evidence to charge the driver but have admitted that they have ‘learned’ from the incident.

Det Sgt John Lyons said: “A full case file of evidence was presented to the Crown Prosecution Service, which determined there was sufficient evidence to charge the suspect with sexual assault even with the missed CCTV opportunity.

“The investigating officers were based in another local authority and were unaware that taxis in Warrington are all fitted with CCTV cameras.

“By the time they became aware of its existence, the footage had been deleted.

“However, we have learned from this case and will ensure that officers across the county will be made aware that Warrington taxis are fitted with cameras, which could assist future investigations.”

DS Lyons, who says all reports of sexual assault are treated extremely seriously, has reassured victims that they should feel confident of receiving the help and support needed from specialist officers and support agencies.

He added: “Rape and sexual assault are two of the most serious of all criminal offences, which can inflict lasting trauma on victims and have a devastating effect on their families.

“All victims will be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve and any allegations will be thoroughly investigated, with the wishes and the needs of the victim as our main priority.”

Afthkar Quayyum, a spokesman for Warrington’s hackney carriage and private hire drivers, labelled the council’s decision to revoke the driver’s licence as ‘premature’.

Furthermore, he issued a plea to the police force.

He said: “The council must adopt a flexible approach to this matter to ensure an innocent man can get his licence back.

“This can’t happen again. This is a dangerous precedent to have.

“The council have to realise what they have actually done.

“From the police, I want assurances that the communication around CCTV in Warrington taxis is clear within Cheshire Police and neighbouring police forces.

“It is really important that we get assurances from the council and police.”

The council says it has made arrangements for its licensing sub-committee to determine the licence application at the ‘earliest opportunity’.

A spokesman said: “We are unable to comment on specific ongoing cases but we are mindful of justice and the right of individuals to earn a living.

“We also acknowledge the important contribution of the taxi trade across the borough.

“As the licensing authority, we have a duty to protect the public, to detect crime and to keep children and vulnerable adults safe.

“We are determined to work closely with our partners and the trade to achieve this. CCTV continues to form part of this policy.”

The spokesman also insists the authority will continue to work with the trade to ensure procedures are of a high standard to protect drivers and the public.

He added: “Any decision to revoke a licence is made having regard to the evidence available at the time.

“Any person can apply for a licence but it is not possible to simply reinstate a licence that has been formally revoked.

“We are governed by a statutory process and must act in a fair and consistent way to all applicants, in accordance with our policy.”

Wonder why the council didn't review the CCTV evidence before the driver was suspended? Presumably the police investigation was started *before* the footage was deleted, but the council only got involved *after* the deletion.

But who knows what happened, precisely

Why 14 days, why not 28?

_________________
IDFIMH

And the driver didn't mention it to the police?

_________________
IDFIMH

Or why they didn't mention it to the police that the vehicle had CCTV.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes, it's all very odd - you'd think the driver would be ramming home the CCTV point during questioning.

Of course, we don't know from the brief details precisely what happened, so possibly unwise to speculate too much.

And with the police and council clearly on a Uber-esque PR-driven damage limitation exercise here, the cock up was possibly even bigger than they're willing to admit to.

As I said earlier, the police investigation presumably took place *before* the footage was deleted, but council only became involved *after* the deletion.

Seeing this in a slightly different light now though - wonder why driver didn't mention (presumably) to police that the vehicle had CCTV?

And to a degree it's worked out quite well for him, because the cock up makes it look like he's being denied justice in some way.

If I was a councillor having to consider whether to reinstate his badge a critical issue would be why the driver didn't mention the CCTV to police. Assuming of course he didn't mention it, rather than him actually mentioning it and the police somehow not following it up.

Idle Police who were after a conviction from an innocent man.

Morrisons delete after 7 days as do many petrol stations

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

they probably didn't arrest him till after the 14 days were gone often they pull all the evidence together fist then arrest the suspect and present them with the evidence in the hope of getting a confession

In this case he wasn't acquitted just the cps didn't press ahead so a case of no smoke without fire which presumably is why council won't let him have badge back

innocent till proven guilty is the preserve of courts of law: councils work on safety first so guilty till proven innocent i.e. he "might" be a risk to the public.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Yes, did wonder if the driver wasn't aware of the allegation until the 14 days had elapsed and the evidence deleted, but you'd think police would make it clear that that was why they were unaware of the CCTV. On the other hand, if the driver had been questioned but didn't mention the CCTV...


Er, he was acquitted, there are several clues in the article, including 'cleared' in the headline (suggesting he'd been through the courts) and at least two mentions of the word *acquitted*






Er, I don't think the council has actually considered the matter yet, hence the article:


Driver was acquitted in November, so hardly a surprise the committee hasn't considered his reinstatement yet - I mean, the Christmas and New Year holidays more important than someone's livelihood

But again this is all relevant to the other recent stuff about sub-committees and delegation of powers etc to get these things resolved speedily.


But interesting to compare our mate Promise in Suffolk and the lack of action against him.

Don't know if it could be relevant, but the incident took place in 2017, but council only revoked badge in March 2018. Which might indicate some sort of delay - maybe the victim didn't complain to the police for some time after the incident, which could explain the CCTV deletion.

But the delay in considering his badge is relevant to the other thread about delegated powers and sub-committees etc. Even though it's a sub-committee that's to consider his badge, he was acquitted two months ago but councillors still haven't considered it.

However, I didn't notice initially that the badge was revoked rather than suspended, so presumably a fresh application required, which could slow things down a bit, although I don't know enough about the procedures here to comment more fully

Er, he was acquitted, there are several clues in the article, including 'cleared' in the headline (suggesting he'd been through the courts) and at least two mentions of the word *acquitted*

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

I can think of one very good reason.

_________________
IDFIMH

Big difference to the reasons the above have CCTV and the reasons we all should have CCTV.

_________________
IDFIMH