captain cab wrote:
February 2002: Haq cleared of indecent assault in trial after police officer had mouthed ‘liar liar’ to jury.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Rogues off the roads http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7213 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | captain cab [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rogues off the roads |
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2007/10/30/rogues-off-the-roads-72703-20032124/ Rogues off the roads Oct 30 2007 by Adam Jupp, Evening Chronicle NEW rules will keep rogue cabbies off our roads and prevent perverts like Moham-mad Haq exploiting a loophole. The sex offender used an appeals system which allowed him to carry on cabbying for more than a year after he preyed on two schoolgirls in his taxi. Haq made a string of sordid suggestions before exposing himself to the horrified 16-year-olds he had picked up in Newcastle. City council licensing chiefs immediately suspended the married-father-of-two following his arrest. But he won the right to stay on the roads until his case came to court six months later. Haq, of Wingrove Road, Fenham, Newcastle, went on to admit committing a lewd act in front of the teenagers when he appeared at the city’s Crown Court and was stripped of his licence. But again he exploited a legal loophole by appealing the ruling, leaving him free to transport passengers round in his cab for a further six months. Haq, who was previously cleared of indecent assault in a 2002 trial, is now finally off the roads for good after JPs rejected his latest bid to keep his badge. Licensing chiefs have moved to reassure the public that new legislation makes it impossible for taxi drivers to hold on to their licenses by appealing against their rulings. Licensing manager Dave O’Brien, said: “It used to be the case that drivers could lodge appeals against suspensions or revocations and continue working until those appeals were heard. “The Road Traffic Act 2006 changed that, meaning any driver who is suspended or loses his license still has the right to appeal but cannot drive in the meantime. “The law could not be applied retrospectively to this case, but we will be using it in future cases. The safety of the general public is our primary concern and we have always taken steps to remove drivers we do not feel are fit and proper people from the roads.” Haq finally lost his hackney carriage license at an appeal hearing at Gosforth Magistrates’ Court. Asa Anderson, prosecuting, told the court Haq was arrested on June 7, 2006. He said: “At 3.50am on Wednesday, June 7, police received a telephone call from a female in Gateshead. “She stated that a male taxi driver who had just dropped her and her friend off was outside committing a lewd act. “The police stated that the two 16-year-old female victims claim that throughout their journey with this driver from The Gate complex in Newcastle, the driver was asking them about their favourite sexual positions, asking them to show their breasts and asking them to sexually touch each other.” Haq pleaded guilty to a charge of outraging public decency at Newcastle Crown Court on February 15 this year and was sentenced to a 12-month community order, with 12 months’ supervision, and 75 hours of unpaid work. Two months later, he appeared before a council licensing meeting and was told his license was being revoked. But he lodged an immediate appeal, leaving him free to carry on cabbying until his Gosforth Magistrates' Court hearing – more than six months later. Chairman of the bench David Mearns concluded Haq was not a fit and proper person to be a hackney carriage driver. Haq was ordered to pay £735 costs. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pervert Haq and his diary of disgrace December 1999: Haq awarded hackney carriage license. May 2001: Haq’s license suspended amid allegations he indecently assaulted a female passenger. December 2001: A trial fails to reach a verdict over indecent assault allegation and a re-trial is ordered. February 2002: Haq cleared of indecent assault in trial after police officer had mouthed ‘liar liar’ to jury. July 2002: Newcastle City Council refuse to renew Haq’s license, saying his behaviour was still inappropriate. January 2003: Haq wins court appeal against the refusal to renew his badge and he’s back on the roads. June 2006: Haq charged with indecent exposure after complaint from two 16-year-old passengers. Haq suspended but appeals, leaving him free to work. November 2006: Haq loses appeal at Magistrates’ Court but appeals to the Crown Court, leaving him free to work. January 2007: Haq’s Crown Court appeal withdrawn and Haq no longer allowed to drive. February 2007: Haq pleads guilty to outraging public decency and sentenced to a 12-month community order and 75 hours unpaid work. April 2007: Newcastle City Council strip Haq of his hackney carriage badge but he appeals, meaning he can continue working the roads until his next hearing. October 2007: Haq loses his appeal at Gosforth Magistrates’ Court and finally loses his license. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rogues off the roads |
captain cab wrote: February 2002: Haq cleared of indecent assault in trial after police officer had mouthed ‘liar liar’ to jury.
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
couldnt the LA have used section 222 of the 1970 Local Government Act? CC |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: couldnt the LA have used section 222 of the 1970 Local Government Act?
CC What a sensible LA should have done was ask the police/mags court to make it a condition of bail that he didn't drive a cab. 
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Its strange....the papers says; Quote: exploiting a loophole
most normal people would say innocent until proven guilty CC |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: Its strange....the papers says;
Quote: exploiting a loophole most normal people would say innocent until proven guilty CC Read the story properly, he pleaded guilty in February and used the loophole to continue working until October. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
grandad wrote: captain cab wrote: Its strange....the papers says; Quote: exploiting a loophole most normal people would say innocent until proven guilty CC Read the story properly, he pleaded guilty in February and used the loophole to continue working until October. I'm sorry I disagree. The council could have done as Sussex suggested or used powers they already had under section 222 of the 1972 act. courtesy of this site; In view of the different standards of proof, a person acquitted of a crime in the criminal court could still be dealt with in a civil tribunal or committee, and hearing hearsay evidence: McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council [1998] 3 All ER 889. and another http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5360&highlight=hussain |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: grandad wrote: captain cab wrote: Its strange....the papers says; Quote: exploiting a loophole most normal people would say innocent until proven guilty CC Read the story properly, he pleaded guilty in February and used the loophole to continue working until October. I'm sorry I disagree. The council could have done as Sussex suggested or used powers they already had under section 222 of the 1972 act. courtesy of this site; In view of the different standards of proof, a person acquitted of a crime in the criminal court could still be dealt with in a civil tribunal or committee, and hearing hearsay evidence: McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council [1998] 3 All ER 889. and another http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5360&highlight=hussain What do you disagree with? You said that he was innocent until proven guilty. He pleaded guilty therfore he is guilty. |
|
| Author: | badger [ Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rogues off the roads |
captain cab wrote: February 2007: Haq pleads guilty to outraging public decency and sentenced to a 12-month community order and 75 hours unpaid work. A few things puzzle me here 
1)Why did the council wait till april before stripping him of his licence,when he pleaded guilty in feb2007 2)Why was he allowed to drive up until oct 2007 after appealing against the councils decision. 3)He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in a court of law..so what the feck was he appealing about  in the first place.
Anyway,at least the taxitrade is minus a lowlife scumbag! |
|
| Author: | badger [ Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sometimes it makes you wonder about how efficient the crb check is when you read about an apalling act like the above is. But there again that driver was no doubt crb checked so what went wrong 
I know the crb is helpful in weeding out drivers pasts,but how the hell does it stop what happened in the above!!!!!!!! Lets hope that that person is never ever allowed to work in the public sector again 
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
badger wrote: I know the crb is helpful in weeding out drivers pasts,but how the hell does it stop what happened in the above!
The CRB check is useful for cataloging the past but as yet it cannot predict the future. Having said that, I suppose this man has now predicted his own future, certainly as far as Taxi licensing is concerned. I suppose he could always drive something that doesn't require a license such as a rickshaw, or....? Regards JD |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
He could apply to be a school caretaker in another area. Well it worked for Ian Huntley. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: What do you disagree with? You said that he was innocent until proven guilty. He pleaded guilty therfore he is guilty.
ahh, I see where your coming from. either way I dont see that there was a loophole, just a lazy dumb a$$ council, now covering its ar$e. CC |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would agree with you there. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|