Taxi Driver Online

Another blowhard former licensing chair

To be fair, he makes some good points. But precisely the kind of things many of us have been saying for years and years

Problem is, though, why didn't he and others make these points when they were actually serving on the committee??

So it's either a case of hindsight being a wonderful thing, or they were more bothered about their position and extra responsibility payment (or whatever) than doing the right thing at the time.

In effect, those making such comments in retrospect are hoist by their own petard


CONFIRMED: Crunch Highland Council meeting on rapist’s taxi licence to be in secret, councillors will almost certainly agree to David Brown’s being in private

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/new ... xi-441433/

Next week’s crunch Highland Council meeting over rapist David Brown’s taxi operators licence will almost certainly be held in private, as first revealed by The Inverness Courier.

The move comes amid mounting scrutiny of the council’s dealings amid accusations of institutional and sometimes needless secrecy that is used to shield reputations rather than serve the public interest.

Last week we revealed how the Scottish Information Commissioner issued more decisions on the council breaching freedom of information law more times this year than Moray Council had in the last 20 years.

Now the agenda confirms that councillors will be asked to agree to exclude the public – including the media – on “the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information”.

They are almost certainly going to agree given that straying from legal duty is what caused the whole issue of the taxi licence scandal in the first place.

But in an almost unheard of move the council has decided to then issue “an announcement on the outcome of the consideration and decision” likely due to the widespread public interest sparked by The Inverness Courier story.

National controversy

We broke the news in late June that councillors voted to continue Brown’s licence after he was sentenced to almost seven years for raping an 18-year-old female passenger in 2023.

The council then hastily announced the August meeting to overturn the licensing committee decision allowing rapist David Brown to keep his taxi operator’s licence – which was also held in private.

Councillors will be asked to debate the issue outwith the spotlight with the public and media access barred, just as a former licensing chairman identified secrecy as a major problem in the system.

Councillor Andrew Jarvie who chaired the committee in the previous session several years ago said that such “secrecy” creates “an environment for committee members to forget what they are there to do”.

Brown has now appealed against the conviction but the move sparked national outrage when it was revealed that six men voted against four women and overruled a police objection.

Urgent meeting

Within two days the council ordered the August meeting fearing the decision amounted to a potential “contravention of law” or “maladministration leading to injustice”.

We also broke a series of exclusives concerning Brown continuing to work after his taxi driver’s licence was suspended and putting the just-resigned chairman at the heart of the scandal on the record.

Since then a Highland Council spokesperson confirmed to us that the special meeting of Highland Council on August 4 will “reconsider the decision taken by the licensing committee to take no action on a taxi operator licence held by David Brown”.

They added: “The special meeting will follow the same rules as the licensing committee. It will begin in public and members will be asked to agree the item is taken in private. Items are only heard in private if there is a legal reason to do so, for example, where confidential or exempt information is included.

"We recognise and understand the high level of public interest in this and are committed to being as transparent as possible about the process and outcome of the meeting, while complying with legislation."

They added that the meeting was called for the earliest date after the summer recess and that “this is an extremely unusual step to take and a measure of the seriousness and urgency with which the council is treating this matter”.

‘Hold all hearings in public, not private’

Independently of that, Councillor Jarvie let rip at the “insanity of their rationale” for some decisions by councillors on licensing while he was the chairman as he questions the role of officials.

"Scottish licensing urgently needs reform to hold all hearings in public, not private,” he said.

“The licensing committee fundamentally has one job, to protect the public from harm. In doing so, it is there to answer only one question, ‘is the person named on the application a fit and proper person to hold this license?’.

“Anything which is not information which supports or disproves that question, is nothing more than a distraction.

“Unfortunately, in my experience, the committee could become distracted and feel bad for an applicant.

Worse, there were some who I asked officials if there was any way to remove them from the committee because of the insanity of their rationale for making decisions.

“One former member, after hearing the police give the detailed and disgusting details of an applicant’s sexual crime charge, moved to grant the licence. Their belief was ‘God could never have created a man who would do such a thing, I don’t believe this happened’.

"I was repeatedly told there was no way to remove members of the licensing committee.

“However, what surprises me most in this case, is how the council officials apparently seem to have also forgotten what they were there to do.

“In my time, they very often would remind the committee of what the law was. But several of those involved in this case have already stated that council officials told them this was the best course of action, and there was no risk to the public - importantly, the council has not disputed the accuracy of the statements made by those councillors who were there.

“Ultimately, they still made that decision and I think it is right that they resigned.

“What angers a lot of people, isn’t just the decision, but the fact it is done behind closed doors. The reason has always been that it involves sensitive personal information, so must be done in private.

“However, when it comes to the licensing board which determines alcohol licenses, the legislation covering that demands that all proceedings are in public. So the precedent is already there, that public interest can supersede an applicant’s privacy rights.”

The crux of the whole thing, however, is surely that the posited legal shortcoming just isn't known and isn't in the public domain.

The whole thrust of all the publicity is essentially that the press and public think the committee got it wrong. But absolutely no indication yet of why it was legally wrong, as opposed to morally so

If the committee couldn't legally allow him to retain the licence then what was the point of the committee's vote and decision in the first place?

Like the last opinion piece by the journalist here who wrote this open letter, the case is compelling enough, but on the other hand it all smacks a tad of headline-grabbing virtue signalling. And a photo op for the journo himself


Press and Journal writes to every Highland councillor to push for rapist taxi licence hearing to be held in public

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... xi-rapist/

All 73 remaining Highland councillors will meet on Tuesday to review David Brown's taxi operator's licence for a second time.


Image: Maria Strang/DC Thomson/Press & Journal

The Press and Journal has written to all 73 Highland councillors to push for the decisive hearing where rapist David Brown’s taxi operator’s licence will be reviewed for a second time to be held in public.

The taxi driver is currently serving a prison sentence of six years and nine months after raping a teenage passenger in his vehicle in a lay-by between Strathpeffer and Dingwall in December 2023.

Highland Council’s licensing committee suspended his taxi driver’s licence the following month, but only after a vote.

Brown has since lodged an appeal against his conviction.

Councillors were split exclusively on gender lines in the vote, with four women voting to suspend the licence while six men wanted to take no action.

Senior legal officers within the council quickly filed paperwork referring the controversial decision to a special meeting of the full council, which will be held on Tuesday.

It means all 73 remaining councillors, after one resigned following the fallout of the original vote, will now review Brown’s licence.

Talks recommended to be held behind closed doors again

Paperwork published by Highland Council has revealed the talks have been recommended once again to be held behind closed doors in private.

The agenda shows the meeting will begin in public with councillors being asked to agree to hold the review of Brown’s taxi operator’s licence in private.

It has been proposed the meeting will then open the doors following the talks for “an announcement on the outcome of the consideration and decision”.

However, after Brown was jailed and placed on the sex offender’s register for life in May this year the committee then voted to take no action against his operator’s licence.

The Press and Journal believes that due to the overwhelming public interest in the case, the entire meeting should be held in public.

The reaction to the initial hearing last month created a level of suspicion and doubt about how the original decision was made.

We believe that holding Tuesday’s talks in public would be a first, but important, step in restoring faith in licensing decisions across the Highlands.


In full: The Press and Journal’s letter to all 73 Highland councillors

Dear Councillor,

As the Voice of the North, The Press and Journal has spent almost 300 years reflecting the concerns, values and expectations of the communities you represent.

In recent weeks, we have heard from readers across the Highlands and beyond who are not only questioning the outcome of the original licensing committee hearing to allow rapist David Brown keep his taxi operator’s licence, but are asking how such an important decision could have been reached without public scrutiny.

I am taking the unusual step to write an open letter to all of Highland Council’s elected members before his licence is reviewed for a second time on August 4 to outline why we, The Press and Journal, believe the hearing should be heard in public and the stakes if it is not.


Image: Maria Strang/DC Thomson/Press & Journal

I have no doubt you are aware of the significant public interest in the case given the outcome of the initial hearing, where Highland Council’s licensing committee voted to take no action against the taxi operator’s licence of a driver who raped a passenger in his vehicle.

He is currently serving a prison sentence of more than six years and has been placed on the sex offender’s register for life.

It is incomprehensible to many Press and Journal readers how that decision was reached, and it is understandable why. It was a decision held in private, behind closed doors and with very little public scrutiny offered.

I’m aware Highland Council has standard procedures for these types of cases. However, in my opinion, the council is no longer dealing with a standard review of a taxi operator’s licence. The public response to the first hearing has changed that.

The vacuum of public scrutiny from the first hearing has allowed social media to fill that space with speculation of all sorts.

Highland Council has a second chance with the upcoming meeting to put all the relevant facts in the open, let Highland residents see how this decision is reached and put a stop to any conspiracy theories that may arise from whatever decision is made.

From the correspondence The Press and Journal has received in the last month, trust in Highland Council’s licensing system has already been damaged.

Holding the upcoming licence review on August 4 in public would be a first, but important, step in restoring faith and transparency in how these critical decisions are made. Taking the talking behind closed doors again will only raise more questions.

I am happy to discuss this further if you wish.

Yours faithfully,

David Mackay

The graphics are a bit too wide for the forum (at least in my browser), but it's perhaps good to see the whole thing in context (and there are the other graphics which have been in umpteen previous P&J pieces).

I mean, fundamentally if it's a quasi-judicial process then the councillors shouldn't really pay the slightest bit of a attention to what the press is saying.

Of course, it's good that the press scrutinises all this. On the other hand, it's almost as if they're trying to induce a breach of natural justice and quasi-judicial fundamentals, and to that extent taint the whole process.

So assuming the press are acting in good faith, again there's a fundamental irony - they're critiquing a system they don't understand themselves, basically

Which is why many councils delegate matters to officers who don't have to pander to shouty voters or pressure groups.

They legally have to follow the laws and rules, which many councillors choose to ignore.

_________________
IDFIMH