Taxi Driver Online

Interesting case for legal pedants, but unfortunately no mention of the licensing dimension. He's won his appeal against the sexual offence conviction, but this has been substituted with breach of the peace.

So could still be licensing repercussions, and of course he could be suspended or revoked even without a criminal conviction. Or maybe that daft one where he keeps his licence for a couple of years, but it won't be renewed


Outrage as taxi driver who asked for sex instead of fare wins appeal

A taxi driver who asked two women for sex in exchange for a lift has had his conviction overturned after the Appeal Court found his “alarming” behaviour was not a sexual offence.

Faisal Aziz’s guilty verdict for “sexual communication” was quashed because the incident lacked a “significant sexual aspect” and was substituted with a conviction for breach of the peace.

His name was also removed from the sex offenders register following the Sheriff Appeal Court decision.

The ruling, by a panel of two men and one woman, provoked incredulity among politicians and campaigners.
The women, aged 18 and 21, had been drinking in Edinburgh city centre in October 2019. When the driver pulled up, they asked if he could take them home but said they had no money. He said: “What else can you offer?” and when asked to explain, replied, “Sex.” The younger woman felt unsafe and uncomfortable, her friend was said to have been frightened.

Of the appeal Sheriff Alasdair MacFadyen said there was no dispute that the driver had made suggestions “a reasonable person might consider to have been sexual, or . . . made without the consent of the complainers”.

At issue, he said, was whether under the terms of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 his purpose was “obtaining sexual gratification”, or “humiliating, distressing or alarming” the women. According to the panel, obtaining sexual gratification is “the satisfaction of a sexual urge by the making of the communication”.

“In our view, in order to justify a conviction under [the 2009 act] the sexual gratification must be intrinsically connected to the making of the communication.” MacFadyen added: “The making of the remark did not invade the sexual autonomy of either of the complainers.”

The limited nature of the exchange also undermined the claim Aziz had sought to humiliate the complainers.
Laura Tomson, co-director of Zero Tolerance, said: “The ruling that this incident ‘was not for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or distressing or alarming the complainers’ is utterly bizarre. Asking women for sex in exchange for a taxi ride is absolutely a form of violence against women and not acceptable.”

Russell Findlay, the Scottish Conservative shadow community safety minister and MSP for West Scotland, said: “Non-lawyers may struggle to understand how a sleazy taxi driver seeking sex from two young women in lieu of a fare does not constitute behaviour of a ‘significant sexual aspect’.

“The unfortunate victims caught up in this technical legal debate can hopefully take some comfort that this trio of sheriffs at least consider the driver’s behaviour to be ‘alarming’."

Incredulity among politicians and campaigners, but my own incredulity relates to why they complained to police (presumably), and that police charged the driver and it got this far

Daft of the driver to say what he did, but what were they expecting? A free ride home?

A free Ride home was what the pervy Taxi driver was after.

Dodgy ground I seem to remember a loooong time ago there was a driver ( Coventry area ?) who asked a passenger who happened to be a prostitute for sexual favours in lieu of payment

he went to prison I think IIRC

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

I was once offered sex in lieu of payment.

She sat on the backseat and showed me her fanny.

I asked her if she had anything smaller…

_________________
Former taxi driver

You have to wonder who's to blame for bringing in a law that has miffed him so much.

Maybe the MSP could tell us?

_________________
IDFIMH

So the driver was a pratt of the highest order, and we don't need drivers like him in the trade.

But is he a sexual offender? The top judges say no, and I'm struggling to see where they went wrong.

_________________
IDFIMH

Here's a summary of the case from a legal journal, which is obviously legalistic in tone.

Alternatively, real anoraks can read the full judgement by clicking here.

And I did wonder if the 'taxi driver' was in fact a PHD, and the article below confirms that he was. Which obviously adds another dimension to the licensing angle, but obviously that's not examined in the appeal


Sheriff Appeal Court substitutes breach of the peace conviction for man’s sexual offence one

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/ ... -the-peace

An Edinburgh taxi driver who was convicted of a statutory offence of making sexual remarks to two young female passengers has had his conviction replaced by one for the common law offence of breach of the peace after appealing to the Sheriff Appeal Court.

Faisal Aziz was originally convicted under section 7(1) of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 of making a sexual communication for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification to complainers TM and TE, aged 18 and 21 respectively. He appealed by stated case on the basis that the sheriff had erred in rejecting his no case to answer submission.

The appeal was heard by Sheriffs Principal Marysia Lewis and Nigel Ross along with Appeal Sheriff Alasdair MacFadyen. Hay, advocate, appeared for the appellant and Edwards QC for the Crown.

Inference drawn

The appellant had been driving a private hire vehicle in Edinburgh City Centre when he was hailed by the two complainers, who thought his vehicle was a taxi. The complainers, who had both consumed alcohol and required to get home, asked the appellant if he could take them home but explained they did not have any money. The appellant asked them “what else can you offer?” and when asked what he meant by that he replied “sex”.

Complainer TM stated that she felt unsafe and uncomfortable with the appellant’s comments and TE said she was frightened. The defence made a no case to answer submission in terms of section 160 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which was opposed by the Crown. Having heard submissions from the appellant and the Crown, the sheriff found that all the component parts of the charge had been satisfied if the prosecution evidence was to be believed.

The sheriff considered that that an inference could be drawn that the appellant’s intention had been to obtain immediate sexual gratification by asking for sex and seeing the reactions of the complainers, or to obtain deferred sexual gratification by later engaging in sexual activity with either or both of the complainers. The sheriff subsequently convicted the appellant and imposed a community payback order, as well as making the appellant subject to the notification requirements under part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

On appeal, counsel for the appellant submitted that the making of the communication of itself was not sufficient to allow the drawing of an inference that he made it for the purpose of sexual gratification. The section of the 2009 Act had been designed to criminalise communications which were completed acts with a consequence that the victim was involved in an invasion of their sexual autonomy.

It was conceded that the remark was capable of amounting to a breach of the peace by the appellant’s counsel. However, in that event it was submitted that no notification requirement under the 2009 Act ought to be imposed.

Short and unspecific

Delivering the opinion of the court, Sheriff MacFadyen began: “Looking at [the 2009 Act] and the sheriff’s findings in fact, there was no dispute that the appellant had intentionally made a verbal communication, that a reasonable person might consider it to have been sexual, or that it had been made without the consent of the complainers or a reasonable belief that they had consented. The issue was whether, as required by section 49 it could be reasonably inferred that the appellant made the communication for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, either immediately or at some later stage, or for the purpose of humiliating, distressing or alarming one or both of the complainers.”

He continued: “In the instant case the exchange was short and unspecific. Importantly, there was no evidence justifying the drawing of a reasonable inference that the appellant obtained sexual gratification from the making of the communication. There was no evidence justifying such an inference that he had the purpose of humiliating, distressing or alarming the complainers. While any sexual gratification may be deferred to a later time, it is still necessary, before convicting under section 7(1), to establish that such gratification, or such intent, was directly connected to the making of the remarks.”

Noting that hoping to be offered sexual favours was different from obtaining gratification, the sheriff went on to say: “In our view, in order to justify a conviction under section 7, the sexual gratification must be intrinsically connected to the making of the communication. This case turns on the extremely limited nature of what passed from the appellant to the complainers. The making of the remark did not invade the sexual autonomy of either of the complainers.”

On the appropriate disposal, the sheriff concluded: “Parties were agreed that the facts found proved by the sheriff amounted to the commission of the offence of breach of the peace, that is to say that the appellant’s conduct when interacting with the complainers had been severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community. We have no difficulty in agreeing that to be the case. In that situation the sheriff was still correct to repel the submission under section 160, because in terms of section 160(1)(b) the appellant could have been convicted on another offence under the complaint.”

He added: “The appellant’s behaviour, while alarming, did not disclose an underlying sexual disorder or deviance from which society should be protected. In that sense therefore there was not a significant sexual aspect to the offender’s behaviour in committing the offence.”

Accordingly, the appellant was not ordered to be subject to the 2003 Act notification requirements.

If anyone (anyone??) was trying to click on the link above to the full judgement and couldn't get it to work, I've amended it, and in any case this one here should do the trick.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2022-sac-(crim)-007.pdf?sfvrsn=34017e98_1

Normally if you post a URL on here the forum software will automatically format it as such, but it was having a bit of trouble with this one, so the URL tags had to be added manually

Nah we'll leave that to you to do and we can just read your summary

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

Well I won't be reading it either, although it's relatively short at only 10 pages or so.

Doubt if even Sussex will read it (particularly since it's a Scots law thing) although he seems to be the only one on here who ever reads these full judgements

But I think the summary article from the legal journal above is more than enough for the purposes of anyone reading on here

Did notice this near the beginning of the judgement, though, which is a slightly more detailed narrative of what happened:


I mean, what did they expect the driver to say?

"Aye, just hop in, I always give freebies to pished up drunks who've spent all their money on booze, clubs and kebabs, and don't have any money left for a cab home."

I suspect they were just miffed that he knocked them back, and when he mentioned sex things just got out of hand.

Slightly different scenario I recall, particularly when I was a good bit younger. They'd, er, flutter their eyelashes at you, want a half price run, or six people in a four-seater, or whatever, and they'd be all smiles and, "go on..."

Then suddenly they'd change like the wind, there would be a barrage of abuse and aggression, effing and blinding etc, when they realised that you weren't going to play ball.

Not the same scenario here, obviously, but I suspect there was a bit of overreaction on the part of the er, young ladies

Interesting that it was a PH taking a flag down

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

I will not be reading it.

However this bit in the article jumped out at me.

On the appropriate disposal, the sheriff concluded: “Parties were agreed that the facts found proved by the sheriff amounted to the commission of the offence of breach of the peace, that is to say that the appellant’s conduct when interacting with the complainers had been severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community. We have no difficulty in agreeing that to be the case. In that situation the sheriff was still correct to repel the submission under section 160, because in terms of section 160(1)(b) the appellant could have been convicted on another offence under the complaint.”

To me the above sounds like both sides agreed the outcome at the start, and only went through the motions.

_________________
IDFIMH

Not a big surprise that this one was (successfully) appealed. And this article also confirms that the PHD was acting illegally in the plying for hire sense.

Also demonstrates the dangers of splattering your private life online and then doing dodgy things - looks like these photos have been lifted from the perp's Facebook page


Edinburgh taxi driver who asked girls for sex when they couldn't pay fare has conviction re-instated

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/ed ... d-25765755

When the women told Faisal Aziz told him they couldn't pay upfront, he asked: "What else can you offer...sex?"


Image: Facebook/Daily Record

A "predatory" taxi driver who pestered girls for sex when they had no money for their fare will be made to sign the Sex Offenders Register after prosecutors overturned his appeal against his conviction.

Faisal Aziz, of Edinburgh, was driving his Volkswagen Passat in South College Street in the capital when he was hailed by two women aged 18 and 21. When they told him they couldn't pay for the fare until they reached their destination, he asked: "What else can you offer...sex?"

The 33-year-old was convicted in May 2021 of making sexually motivated remarks towards the pair, which would have required him to sign onto the Sex Offenders Register. But in August this year lawyers for the driver convinced appeal judges to remove the sexual element of the crime - exempting him from signing on.

However, prosecutors took the case to the High Court appeal court this week, which has restored the conviction in full. Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice General, noted of Aziz's behaviour: "The significant sexual aspect is made out."

The court was told that Aziz had been driving a private hire car in Edinburgh city centre in the early hours of October 5 2019 when he was hailed by the two young women. He pulled his car over despite only being licensed to pick up pre-booked passengers.

The three entered into a conversation, in which the pair said they could pay for the ride upon arriving at their destination, before Aziz then suggested they could cover the cost in another way. Both then left the taxi, frightened, and he drove off, leaving them alone in an empty, dark street – but not before they snapped a photo of his number plate, snaring him.

Appeal Sheriff Alasdair MacFadyen reduced Aziz's conviction to a breach of the peace on August 30 this year, ruling that his remark had not been sexually motivated. Lawyers for the driver told the High Court appeal court that he accepted he had committed that crime, with no sexual element.

But prosecutors said the sheriff appeal court had "erred in its approach to sexual autonomy". Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice General, agreed, noting that there was a "significant sexual aspect" to Aziz's quip because he had directly asked for sex.

While the appeal sheriff had ruled that his proposition was "different from obtaining sexual gratification", Lord Carloway disagreed, concluding: "That is exactly what his request was." Young women who have been drinking, he said, are entitled to be protected from "predatory males seeking sexual favours in exchange for fares", especially those in the nighttime trade.

In a written summary, he said: "Whether the expectation was for immediate, or deferred, gratification does not matter. The only defence open would have been to raise the issue of reasonable belief that the complainers consented.

"That might have been open had the communication been made in a social setting and between persons known to each other. It could hardly have been available in a situation involving strangers in the relationship of potential taxi driver and passenger in the public street where the passenger’s obvious desire is to go home and not to indulge in sexual activity."

Aziz's licence was suspended by the City of Edinburgh council, according to official records, and expired in September this year.




Images: Facebook/Daily Record