Taxi Driver Online

If you ignore my clunky thread title, this is quite interesting.

At least, the sting is in the tail of this Oxford City Council news release.


Rogue drivers face full force of the law

https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/ ... of_the_law

Oxford City Council’s Licensing Team has had a string of successes in the courts protecting the public from unsafe and unsuitable drivers.

In early November, in Oxford Magistrates Court, Karol Grzyb of Toot Hill Butts, Headington was found guilty of unlawfully plying for hire in Oxford, whilst operating his taxi, which was licensed by another authority.

Mr Grzyb was fined of £483 and was also ordered to pay £300 costs and £23 victim surcharge for unlawful plying for hire as well as £200 with six points on his licence for using a motor vehicle without insurance. The Council has applied for costs of £650. Mr Grzyb has a right to appeal.

The Judge was satisfied that Mr Grzyb had failed to stop as a deliberate attempt to avoid detection. She had considered imposing a DVLA disqualification due to the aggravating circumstance and danger of this but had instead imposed penalty points as Mr Grzyb would also be subject to disciplinary action by the taxi licensing authority, Vale of White Horse District Council.

On the same date Oxford licensed driver Mohammed Hammou of John Buchan Road, Oxford lost an appeal against the Council’s revocation of his Private Hire Driver licence, which was removed due to his conviction at Magistrate Court on 13 May 2019. Mr Hammou was found guilty and fined £480 for unlawful plying for hire and £170 with six points on his license for using motor vehicle without insurance.

And on 13 November, Lutfur Rahman, of Wood Farm Road, lost his appeal against the Council's refusal to grant him a Private Hire licence. The Court was satisfied that Mr Rahman was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence as he has a long and very poor licence record. His failure to disclose convictions was also significant and deliberate.

So this guy was cleared of sexual assault almost four years ago:



Funny, though, that at the trial this was said:



Which, although a few years ago now, hardly seems consistent with the "very long and poor licence record" and 'failure to disclose convictions' now cited by Oxford Council.

An unwanted kiss on the cheek without much evidence of force seems at the lower end of this kind of thing - in fact the complainant only contacted police after being dissatisfied with the way the cab company dealt with it.

But maybe his record is why he was prosecuted for this, while the trivial nature of the thing is maybe why the jury acquitted him.

(Of course, it could be two different people, but the address now and then is stated as Wood Farm Road, so very probably the same person.)

Strictly speaking, it was presumably a renewal rather than a grant?

On the plus side, 'renewal' wouldn't have fitted into my thread title.

And 'loses renewal refusal appeal' sounds even clunkier

Hmmmmmm.

_________________
IDFIMH

Is it usual for magistrates and judges to effectively say that they can be more lenient because the defendant will also be dealt with by councillors? Certainly doesn't seem to feature in many reported cases.

Interesting, too, that the words 'disciplinary action' are used, which of course veers towards punishment. And it's not the function of licensing committees to punish drivers; it's more about protecting the public.

Of course, there's that stuff about short suspensions as a utilitarian punishment, or whatever, but let's not go there at this time of the morning

Or, at least, it's the morning here

I've never seen a report from any court that in effect says they wont deal with the matter in a certain way as someone else will.

They often order others to deal with a defendant in a certain way, but never merely assume someone else will and leave it at that.

Maybe the article isn't a 100% accurate version of events.

_________________
IDFIMH

Dangerous Precedent

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

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

I would be amazed if the Judge's comments haven't been misreported.

_________________
IDFIMH

Never really go to the cinema, so haven't seen that one


It's an Oxford Council news release, so I'm guessing some senior licensing bod would have had at least some input into its content.

A couple more instances of drivers being found guilty of having no insurance. do the drivers never read what their insurance policies actually say about their insurance? I'm sure if they did, almost every case of driving without insurance would have a robust defence.