Taxi Driver Online

What an utter joke

No point saying much about this. Suspect readers will either agree or disagree with the decision, and little in the way of middle ground


Taxi driver loses licence 44 years after conviction for indecently assaulting child

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/19 ... ing-child/


Image: Bolton News

A TAXI driver who was convicted of indecently assaulting a four-year-old girl 44 years ago has lost an appeal to keep his private hire licence.

Mohammed Zabir was aged 14 when he was given a community sentence in 1977 after admitting the offence and when he first applied for a private hire licence 25 years ago there was no requirement to declare spent convictions.

However a series of policy changes meant that when Mr Zabir applied to renew his licence in 2019 the conviction was taken into consideration and a panel refused it on the grounds that he was not a "fit and proper person".

Magistrates refused his appeal against the decision and so he appealed further to Bolton Crown Court where the case was heard by Judge Tom Gilbart and two justices.

Malcolm Hope, for Bolton Council, told the court that policies about granting taxi licences have been tightened, particularly surrounding applicants who have previous convictions for sexual offences, in the wake of criticism levelled at Rotherham Council following a child exploitation scandal.

"The safeguarding of the public is the paramount consideration. An applicant should not be given the benefit of the doubt," said Mr Hope.

"The most compelling mitigation for the appellant in this case would be the passage of time. But the risk of someone with a conviction for a sexual offence has been considered too great."

The policy now states that an applicant who has any conviction for a sexual offence will not be granted a licence unless there is and "exceptional, clear or compelling reason".

Mr Hope told the court that, in 1998 Mr Zabir lost his licence after being convicted of plying for hire, being uninsured and speeding, but he reapplied six months later and regained the licence, which he kept while the latest appeal process was underway.

Roger Brown, representing Mr Zabir, argued that Bolton Council had not immediately revoked Mr Zabir's licence over his indecent assault conviction, but had waited until he applied to renew the licence and there have been no complaints about his behaviour in the years he has worked as a driver, so proving he has been rehabilitated.

After considering the arguments, Judge Gilbart and the two magistrates sitting with him ruled that Bolton Council were not wrong to refuse to renew Mr Zabir's licence and so his appeal was rejected.

So he'll be 58 now, which I'll be in about one month

whilst it may seem harsh after all this time he clearly is not a pillar of the taxi/PH community

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

I don't think the decision is a propionate one.

The lad was 14 at the time, and the time was 44 years ago.

_________________
IDFIMH

If an offense committed 44 years ago by a 14-year-old youth isn't the above, then one has to wonder what exactly is?

_________________
IDFIMH

But the question A normal human being would be asking is that did a 14-year-old Child even know he was committing an offence and what was the circumstances regarding his plea

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

So the offence happened when he was a 14-year-old.

He's been driving in the trade since aged around 33.

Now they've taken his badge at the age of 58

we have some regular customers who have a son when he was 14 he was charged with sexual offences and ended up doing 8 years in young offenders institution/prison at that age they generally do know what they are doing although he was a bit naïve as other family members did tell him he was doing wrong but he continued (and went further)

The point is that he has done other things (less serious) much more recently and I think that has a lot to do with his case getting revisited whether or not this is Proportionate is somewhat irrelevant

He put himself in the spotlight and the skeletons in the cupboard were spotted

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

That might have been a reasonable argument when he got his badge, but in fact it reads more like an argument in the driver's favour now. I mean, the offence happened 44 years ago, and he's had a badge for 25 years with no evidence of any wrongdoing of that kind.


You mean the plying for hire and speeding offences 23 years ago, a couple of years after he got his badge intially?

I mean, none of us has ever done anything naughty or exceeded the speed limit


But it's only come to light because of the change in disclosure requirements, and the offence happened 44 years ago, and he's had a badge for 25 years.

And it looks like the council didn't even revoke his badge when it came to light, but waited until he was renewing.

Just can't see the point of taking his badge at the age of 58 after 25 years as a driver, over something that happened 44 years ago

To me the main issue isn't the fact that the offence took place so long ago, it's the fact that he was a child when it happened.

I agree the offence is a very serious one, even though we don't know the exact nature of the offence (thankfully), but we do know the sentence which was a community sentence.

Which indicates to me it was not at, or near, the top end of the offence table.

I also think this was a voluntary declaration of past offences, as I'm not sure this would appear on the DBS now or when the CRB checks came in.

With all the above in mind, I still believe this was a disproportionate action taken by the council in this instance.

For all we know those sitting in the Mags and the Crown Courts might have agreed, but the test is not that, the test is were the actions of the council manifestly unreasonable, and despite me disagreeing with the council's actions, I don't think that test is met.

_________________
IDFIMH