I know what Sussex will say about this one
Slightly odd feel to this article, though, and the references to the barristers, their trading name and individual counsel suggests they maybe had a hand in writing it
Suspect they issued a press release and the newspaper/website rehashed it
Burton taxi driver loses appeal to keep licence after making 'inappropriate comments' to teen girl
https://www.staffordshire-live.co.uk/ne ... al-7434167
The court was told he also sent text messages to the 17-year-old
A Burton taxi driver whose licence was revoked after complaints of making inappropriate comments and text messages to a teenage girl has had his appeal to keep it dismissed. A lay bench at Cannock Magistrates’ Court has dismissed the appeal brought by the private hire driver against the revocation of his private hire driver licence by East Staffordshire Borough Council, which deals with licensing matters in the town.
The licence was revoked following complaints made by a 17-year-old girl about inappropriate comments she said were made to her by the driver during two journeys, and inappropriate text messages that he had sent to her, she said. The council as the complainant gave live evidence during the appeal but the taxi driver as the appellant did not take the opportunity to do the same.
At the appeal, the council argued that the court should focus on the “fit and proper person” test per statutory guidance - and would those applying the test let someone they cared about travel alone in a car driven by the appellant at any time of day or night? The council told the court the answered to this question was “no” based on the evidence, according to Cornerstone Barristers, which represented the authority in court.
The council argued the court could only allow the appeal if it thought the authority was wrong to have answered “no” to the question. The court did take note of evidence presented by the appellant of remedial action taken since the reported incidents, such as installing a camera in his vehicle.
However, the court found the evidence of screenshots of inappropriate, non-business-related text messages sent to the teenager, along with the taxi driver's failure to be forthcoming about what had occurred during an investigation meant the council had not been wrong, said a spokesman for Cornerstone Barrister.
The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay a portion of the council’s cost. A spokesman for Cornerstone Barristers said after the hearing: "The case was a reminder of both how valuable it is for complainants to give live evidence and how important it is for councils to secure documentary evidence from complainants (such as the screenshots taken from a mobile phone in this case) where possible. Olivia Davies represented the successful Respondent Council."
A council spokesperson said after the case: “The matter was presented before magistrates and the council’s defence of the appeal was successful.”
