Taxi Driver Online

This guy presumably didn't have a badge when the offence took place, but whether his licence had been suspended or revoked, or whether he just hadn't renewed it isn't clear. Another version of the article describes him as a 'former Littlehampton taxi driver', suggesting he wasn't badged at the time.

And he was done for 'plying for hire when the carriage was not licensed', also suggesting it might have been plated previously.


Littlehampton taxi driver banned from driving for being ten times over the drug-drive limit

https://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/c ... -1-8981507

A taxi driver from Littlehampton has been banned from driving for being ten times over the drug-drive limit, according to police.

Nicholas Welch, 54, a taxi driver, of Arundel Road, Littlehampton, was arrested in East Street, Littlehampton, on December 23, and charged with driving with 520mcg of benzoylecgonine - what cocaine turns into in your body - per litre of blood in his system, possession of cocaine, driving without insurance and plying for hire when the carriage was not licensed.

At Worthing Magistrates’ Court on 31 May, he was sentenced to a two-year conditional discharge and disqualified from driving for 30 months. He was also ordered to pay £85 costs and a £20 victim surcharge.

240 motorists were arrested in Sussex as part of Surrey Police and Sussex Police’s Christmas crackdown on drink and drug-drivers, which ran from December 1 to January 1.

Of those, 126 have since been convicted in court. The remaining have either been charged, released under investigation or released without charge, police said.

Among those was Lloyd Harper, 29, unemployed, of Bayford Road, Littlehampton, who was arrested in Arundel Road, Worthing, on 14 December and charged with driving with 7mcg of cannabis per litre of blood in his system.

At Crawley Magistrates’ Court on 17 June, he was disqualified from driving for 12 months. He was also ordered to pay a £200 fine, £85 costs and a £30 victim surcharge.

Another was a drug-driver from East Preston who was spotted with a knife in his trousers in a corner shop on New Year's Eve.

This could well be him on Facebook, but not much going on here:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Nick-Welch- ... e_internal

I'm guessing the fella must have had no previous.

As if he had there is a good chance he could have done time with that level of drugs in his blood.

_________________
IDFIMH

sounds like his habit was serious and everything went on drugs so nothing spent on renewing license

part of me feels sorry for him and part of me says wtf at his age he should be well aware that drugs are dangerously addictive and to stay clear

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

Well I wondered about the level of drugs, because although 10 times sounds a lot, because they're illegal then I would imagine the tolerance level is quite low, so the amount found might not have been particularly significant.

I would look it up, but can't be bothered. But if he's daft enough to do what he did then I've little sympathy.

Looking at the sentencing guidelines ;

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/of ... ance-only/

I think if he was lucky to get just a conditional discharge, rather than a community order.

_________________
IDFIMH

Had a quick look into this, and found this on a website of a (self-proclaimed) "national firm of Expert Motoring Lawyers".

Anyway, according to this, when the government was considering the cocaine limit for driving "it enlisted a panel of advisers ranging from specialists in pharmacokinetics (the science of what the body does to a drug), pharmacology and psychopharmacology, forensic toxicology, misuse of drugs, clinical practice, mental health, addiction science and transport safety."



So basically the experts recommended a limit of 500 micrograms of benzoylecgonine, which would mean that someone who took cocaine a couple of days previously would be under the limit.

So our man's reading was 520 micrograms, therefore marginally over the recommended limit. But because the threshold was actually set very low (effectively to catch out those who've used cocaine in the last few days, but who the expert group obviously didn't think should be penalised) the headline figure is 'ten times over the limit'.

Which is kind of what I was getting at - it makes it sound like he was off his face while sitting in the street waiting for unsuspecting passengers, or was actually snorting a line while sitting there.

Suspect in fact he hadn't taken cocaine for a couple of days.

And I suspect it wouldn't be that uncommon for members of the public to be driving with those kinds of levels in their body, but the likelihood of them showing any obvious signs of impairment would be remote, and thus very unlikely to be clinically tested for cocaine, even in the unlikely event that the had to take (and failed) a roadside impairment test.

However, in the particular circumstances here (caught in possession, plying for hire, former cab driver) he was blood tested and was obviously over the legal limit.