Taxi Driver Online

Wonder what happened here?

I'd guess maybe the driver didn't want to wait on this tube because there was a big queue at the filling station and the tube wasn't going very far anyway...

Or the tube was already kicking off, so when he got out at the garage the driver saw the opportunity to offload him. But it all went wrong...


Elgin taxi driver left with bloodied and swollen nose after offshore worker headbutted him

https://www.northern-scot.co.uk/news/fa ... ht-427218/

An offshore worker who headbutted a taxi driver and ripped out parts of the vehicle’s interior during a late-night disturbance has been fined.

Thomas Van Holten (29) appeared at Elgin Sheriff Court by way of deferred sentence in connection with the incident which took place on November 30, 2024.

The court heard that at around 11pm Van Holten had been travelling with two other men in a taxi after being picked up on Elgin High Street.

During the journey, Van Holten asked the driver to stop at a shop. However, upon returning to the vehicle he became aggressive.

The situation escalated, with the 29-year-old ripping the meter and an interior mirror from the taxi before becoming involved in a physical altercation with the driver.

Van Holten then headbutted the man and pushed him before leaving the scene and making his way towards his home address.

The driver contacted police and was later taken to Dr Gray’s Hospital suffering from a bleeding and swollen nose. His injuries were not serious.

The driver initially estimated the total cost of the incident, including damage and loss of earnings, at £2000, although this figure had not been vouched for.

Fiscal depute Shay Treanor told the court that the damage to the vehicle was assessed at £500.

Van Holten was cautioned and charged nearly one month after the incident following a police investigation.

Defence solicitor Robert Cruickshank said the taxi had stopped at a filling station in Elgin and for reasons “unbeknown” to his client, it drove off while he was out of the vehicle.

Mr Cruickshank said Van Holten had been under the impression the taxi would wait and that those remaining in the vehicle challenged the driver on this.

An argument followed and, after encountering what was described as an “unpleasant incident”, Van Holten intervened in a manner the solicitor conceded was unacceptable.

Mr Cruickshank added: “He fully accepts his responsibility for the incident and he expresses his remorse. It is a matter of regret for him.

“I do find it difficult to comment on the financial losses given the abject lack of specification as to how that figure was arrived at.

“It seems high as far as Mr Van Holten is concerned.”

Sheriff Ian Duguid, referencing similar offending by Van Holten in 2018, warned the soon-to-be father that any failure to improve his behaviour could result in a custodial sentence.

He said: “These are unfortunate offences for you to become involved in.

“You must have narrowly avoided a custodial sentence in 2018 and this is an unfortunate repetition of that behaviour.

“You are in the gravest danger of ending up in jail.

“Your behaviour is very much on the line.”

Van Holten was ordered to pay a £500 fine and £1000 in compensation at a rate of £500 per month.

Always meant to post this (maybe I did), which this publication always includes with court reports.

Which some may find interesting reading. The law may be a bit different in England, but I'd imagine it's broadly similar:


Court reporting - Highland News & Media fact sheet

https://www.northern-scot.co.uk/news/co ... et-238723/

Highland News & Media publishes a number of court cases across our newspapers and websites.

Court reporting attracts a higher number of complaints than any other part of our business, often from defendants or their relatives.

In our experience, the vast majority of these complaints come about because of a lack of understanding about how the justice system works – and about what we are allowed and not allowed to publish.

Most courts are open to the public – which includes the media. The idea behind this is that our democracy operates on an open justice system, where justice is not only done, but seen to be done.

We may publish court stories on our online platforms, in print (in any of our titles) or both, at our discretion.

We do not remove court stories from our websites, as we have a duty to show that justice is being done. We do this by keeping a public record both in our online and print archives. We are protected by law to report and retain this information.

Not every court case is reported. Therefore we use our judgement of news values and public interest to decide which cases are published and which are not. There is no requirement, legal or otherwise, for us to report on every case that comes before a court.

What we can publish

Court reports do not have to include every part of the case – as long as what is reported is accurate and not misleading.

We report from court under a legal framework known as qualified privilege, meaning we can generally report anything which is said or given in evidence in court. Our journalists do not have to check whether the evidence given is true, but must report correctly what was said.

Names, ages and full addresses of the defendant and any witnesses can usually be published, though we normally would only use a street name rather than the house number. This allows the person to be identified so that other people with the same name living in the same area are not defamed.

Photographs of anyone involved in a court case, including photos taken by a photographer, taken from social media or supplied by authorities such as the police, can also be published in most cases.

What we can't publish

There are some things we cannot report from court. This includes any information which might identify a victim of sexual assault, as they are entitled to lifelong anonymity (regardless of the outcome of any court case), and information which identifies a friend or relative of a criminal who is not relevant to the case.

Young people under 18 who are accused of committing a crime are generally not allowed to be named, unless there is an overriding public interest argument.

There are also occasionally additional reporting restrictions put in place by a court.

Any publisher – which not only includes news businesses like HNM but also members of the public publishing via social media, for example in online comments – can be found in contempt of court.

Once somebody has been arrested or civil proceedings have started, they are protected by law from the publication of information which might mean that a trial cannot take place fairly.

For this reason, our comments policy is that online comments will not be allowed on stories relating to court proceedings where no verdict has yet been reached or where a person has been arrested and charged in relation to any incident and is yet to face the courts. Comments will be allowed on reports of court proceedings where a verdict has been reached or an admission of guilt has been given by the defendant.

Removing court stories from our websites

We do not remove court stories from our websites as it is important that we maintain a full record of archived stories.

If a conviction has been 'spent' you may have the rights to have links to these articles removed from search engines. You can make a formal request to the search engines themselves to have these links removed, but the story will still exist on our websites.