Taxi Driver Online

Ashford taxi driver in licence ban after testing positive for driving on cannabis

A taxi driver has lost his appeal to re-instate his licence after it was revoked when he tested positive for driving under the influence of cannabis.

The Ashford cabbie was stopped by police after they received reports he was allegedly dealing Class A drugs.

Upon arrest, Shamin Ali tested positive for cannabis, which was also found in the vehicle.

Following the police incident, Mr Ali was called in for questioning by Ashford Borough Council (ABC) to review his taxi licence and it was ruled he was not "a fit and proper person to hold licence".

ABC determined that Mr Ali was under the influence of a controlled substance, had lied to police at the scene and he had "demonstrated behaviour and actions that posed a risk to public safety and his position of trust".

The incident took place on April 7 last year.

His license was revoked with immediate effect by ABC despite Mr Ali not being charged by police with any offences.

Just under a year later, Mr Ali took the council to court to appeal against the decision.

A hearing at Margate Magistrates' Court on March 30 heard the court was satisfied the council was not wrong in its decision after hearing evidence.

The court ordered Mr Ali to pay a contribution of £600 toward the costs incurred by the council in defending the action taken.

Sheila Davison, ABC’s assistant director for safety and wellbeing, said: "The role of the council is to ensure public safety and confidence in our taxi drivers.

"If we believe a licensed driver is failing in this regard we will not hesitate to take action such as issuing a warning, penalty points, suspension or, if necessary, revoke their licence.

"We are pleased that the court saw fit to agree with our decision and that members of the public continue to be assured of their safety when using taxi drivers holding a licence issued by the council."

_________________
IDFIMH

not uncommon for drivers around here to smoke pot in fact I remember telling one of my drivers that if I ever caught him doing it again he'd be out of the door. Apparently there was quite a gang of them who used to go to a back room of a local takeaway and indulge.

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

This is the official council press release. Guess which important point in the press article above isn't mentioned here - the most interesting point in the article above, in my opinion

Also, in my opinion, the council is being a tad disingenuous here


Ashford taxi driver loses appeal against revoked licence

https://www.ashford.gov.uk/news/latest- ... d-licence/

A taxi driver has lost his appeal against the decision of Ashford Borough Council to revoke his licence.

Mr Shamin Ali contested the decision the council made on 25 April 2022 whereby his joint Private Hire Vehicle and Hackney Carriage Vehicle driving licence was revoked with immediate effect with the court appeal hearing taking place on Friday 31 March 2023 at Margate Magistrates Court.

Police report led to decision

The decision by the council’s licensing team was made after receiving a report from Kent Police. On 7 April 2022, Mr Shamin Ali was stopped by Kent Police after receiving intelligence that he was dealing Class A drugs from his licensed taxi. Mr Shamin Ali tested positive for drug driving having failed a road side drug wipe and was arrested. He tested positive for cannabis, which was also found in the vehicle.

The council brought Mr Shamin Ali in for questioning in respect of the police incident. Given that he had been driving while under the influence of a controlled substance, lied to the police at the scene and failed to notify the Licensing Authority of his arrest as per the conditions of his licence, along with the possession of controlled substances in his licensed vehicle it was decided he had demonstrated behaviour and actions that posed a risk to public safety and his positon of trust.

His licence was revoked with immediate effect.

The council has ‘a duty to ensure, so far as possible, that Mr Shamin Ali is a fit and proper person to hold licences’. The test that officers apply is (from Department of Transport – statutory guidance) “Without any prejudice, and based on the information before you, would you allow a person for whom you care, regardless of their condition, to travel alone in a vehicle driven by this person at any time of day or night?”

Ashford Borough Council determined that they would not and Mr Shamin Ali’s licence was revoked with immediate effect on 25 April 2022.

The court ruling

The court in Margate was completely satisfied on hearing the evidence from the council and that from Mr Shamin Ali, that the council was not wrong in their decision to immediately revoke the licence in the interests of the protection of public safety, and therefore dismissed the appeal before them.

The court ordered Mr Shamin Ali to pay a contribution of £600 toward the costs incurred by the council in defending the action taken.

Sheila Davison, Ashford Borough Council’s Assistant Director Safety and Wellbeing, said: “The role of the council is to ensure public safety and confidence in our taxi drivers. If we believe a licensed driver is failing in this regard we will not hesitate to take action such as issuing a warning, penalty points, suspension or, if necessary, revoke their licence.

“We are pleased that the court saw fit to agree with our decision and that members of the public continue to be assured of their safety when using taxi drivers holding a licence issued by the council.”

For anyone not paying attention, this is the salient point not stated in the official Ashford Borough Council news release. Unless I'm the one not paying attention, you'd never guess from reading the council's statement that the driver had never actually been charged by police with any offence

And we have the perverts from up north to blame for all these instant revocations.

Councils have to make a judgment call, drug driving can take months to investigate due to the testing process. Do we allow someone to drive in the meantime?

_________________
IDFIMH

Fair point about time being of the essence, but if such urgency was required, why did it take almost three weeks to revoke him?

And if it takes so long to investigate, why not just suspend rather than revoke?

To an extent, revoking overly pre-empts the investigation, in my opinion. Maybe they would have taken a different approach if they'd suspended and he was subsequently never charged with anything. And, as per usual, maybe they're more concerned about the 'optics' than what's right - they rush to judgement, and won't back down when more is known about the case, because they'll lose face.

Which in turn is maybe why the council didn't mention that police eventually brought no criminal charges. In terms of PR, it suits the council to leave that out, because people will assume from the council's press release that he was bang to rights. But it's surely in the public interest, and in the interests of transparency and accountability, that the fact no prosecution was brought is disclosed?

Of course, it's probable the driver is a bad 'un, and the court agreed with the council, and we don't know precisely why there was no criminal prosecution of any kind.

But I just think there's too much low-level PR and politicking about a lot of stuff like this

Councils can't suspend and then revoke, the suspension has to be the punishment, not an interim measure.

They can suspend as a punishment and leave it at that once the suspension ends, but if they want the driver to stop working whilst they or the police investigate, they have to revoke.

And if everything turns out ok for the driver they can reinstate.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J1F ... gh&f=false

_________________
IDFIMH

Thanks for that, Sussex - kind of knew when I was typing it out that you would respond along those lines. Was vaguely aware of that stuff, but can never remember the details

But, anyway, in my opinion suspension should be permissible as an interim measure, because revocation perhaps introduces a degree of finality, and predisposes the process in that direction, when a more temporary measure might be more appropriate at times.

And while I'd really need to sit down for a while to try to make some real sense of the Button stuff, there's obviously still a lack of clarity in some regards, and also self-evidently a degree of satisfaction with the current legal position

Don't know why I thought of this thread when reading this, but here it is


Bewdley taxi boss' hospital horror after teen found unconscious

https://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/ ... conscious/


Image: Newsquest/Kidderminster Shuttle

A TAXI boss has called for Kidderminster Hospital to offer emergency treatment overnight after finding an unconscious teen who overdosed on painkillers.

Neale White, who runs Bewdley Taxi, came across a car in a hedge when driving back to Bewdley on the switch-back in the early hours of Sunday (April 23).

He saw a young man who flashed a torch at him to get his attention before being told that his friend was unconscious in the car.

The 61-year-old then called an ambulance but was told the wait may have been up to three hours.

Mr White, who was driving an eight-seater taxi at the time, initially drove the 18-year-old to Kidderminster Hospital, believing someone would be at hand to help, however, the hospital was closed.

Unsure over the severity of the teen's condition, he drove to Worcestershire Royal Hospital where he was treated and made a recovery.

Mr White has now called for medical staff to be on duty at Kidderminster Hospital overnight.

He told The Shuttle: “It was a terrible situation.

“We were lucky. That hospital being shut could have cost somebody their life.

"It needs a doctor of some description there 24 hours a day so if there is an emergency someone can be treated.

"Something like that was time sensitive.

"When it's life-threatening, you need to be able to speak to a doctor more or less straight away."

The teen's stepdad, who did not wish to be named, has spoken over his shock at the incident.

He said: "Thank god it wasn't too serious. We didn't know that at the time".

He added that he was "let down" that there was no help at hand at Kidderminster Hospital in the first instance.

Matthew Hopkins, chief executive of Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust said: “While we can’t comment on specific cases, we would always recommend calling 999 if someone is unconscious.

“Minor Injury Units such as the one at Kidderminster can offer advice and treatment for a range of injuries when it’s not a life-threatening emergency, and patients are advised to check opening hours prior to travelling.”

Funnily enough, we're not told who was actually driving...

If it had been life-threatening, the Ambulance service would have sent a car/van immediately.

Well done to the cabby who did his bit, but this tale of woe isn't actually a tale of woe and no doubt his firm will benefit from it.

_________________
IDFIMH