Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Wed Apr 29, 2026 12:54 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:26 pm
Posts: 342
Location: t'internet
20 Feb 2008

Boy found guilty of cabbie attack

A TEENAGER who smashed a brick into the face of a taxi driver has been
convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.


The 15-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, could now face
the prospect of detention.

The boy attacked the cabbie shortly after telling a friend on the phone that
he was going to hit a taxi driver with a brick, an allegation he claimed his
former pal was making up.

The boy said he was acting in self-defence after the cab driver had
attacked him in the street because he didn't have money for the fare.

But a jury of seven men and five women at Swindon Crown Court did not
believe him and convicted him following a trial.

Driver Abdullah Jan suffered a fractured eye socket after the brick, which
was in a shoulder bag, was smashed into his face.

He had picked up the teenager shortly after midnight on Sunday, May 27
last year close to Whitehouse Bridges, and took him to Wroughton.

As they neared the village the teenager told him he needed the toilet and
that he could not pay for the fare up front and a person at the destination
would settle the bill.

Fearing he wouldn't be paid, Mr Jan decided he would drop the boy off
where he picked him up.

After getting the teenager out of the cab, he said, he felt a heavy blow to
the side of his face.

He got out and chased the boy who continued to try and hit him with the
brick, which was in the bag.

Despite his injury the driver managed to grab the boy and held him until
the police and ambulance arrived at the scene in Corporation Street.

When questioned by police the boy said he did not have the bag with him
but changed his story when CCTV footage of him from earlier in the night
was produced showing him with it.

Giving evidence at the trial, he said the brick was lying on a pavement
near a building site as he fled from Mr Jan and he picked it up and put it in
the bag to protect himself.

He said he could not run away as he had "no stamina" and could only
manage short bursts at any one time. The boy also said his pal wanted
him to be convicted and was making up a story that he had told him he
was going to carry out the attack.

Earlier the court had been told that the boy had decided to spend the night
away from home following a row with his father.

Recorder Ian Pringle QC released him on bail so the probation service can
compile a pre-sentence report.

The boy has a previous conviction for damaging a bus stop.

Mr Pringle said he must observe a night-time curfew and is not allowed to
travel unaccompanied in a taxi.

Source: Swindon Advertiser

Related TDO Topic: 15-year old scumbag, allegedly
----------
Disclaimer
These press articles are intended for informational purposes only.
Statements and opinions expressed in these articles are solely those of the original Publisher.
I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any of these articles, and therefore I am not liable for any information contained therein.
Where possible, the Publisher and the source are documented within each article.
Any author that holds legal copyright, and objects to their material being posted, may request that it be removed and any future material excluded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:26 pm
Posts: 342
Location: t'internet
17 Mar 2008

Brick assault teen locked up

A TEENAGER has been told there is no way for him to avoid a custodial
sentence for attacking a taxi driver with a brick.


The 15-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted of
causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Yesterday at Swindon Crown Court he was given a three-year custodial
sentence in a young offenders' institution.

Recorder Ian Pringle QC said: "I would be failing in my duty to the public
were I not to impose a sentence of detention in this case."

Even Andrew Hobson, defending, accepted a custodial sentence was
probably inevitable, but had appealed for a lesser punishment.

The boy had said the attack on driver Abdullah Jan was in self-defence,
but was convicted by a jury at Swindon Crown Court.

The incident took place on May 27 last year after Mr Jan, who believed the
teenager was not able to pay the required taxi fare, decided to drop him
off where he had picked him up.

The defendant said he was distressed after an argument with his father.

Once he had got the defendant out of his cab, Mr Jan received a blow to
the side of his face from a brick.

Despite the injury, Mr Jan managed to chase the boy, who continued
trying to hit him with the brick.

Mr Jan held on to him until the police arrived at the scene in Corporation Street.

Mr Hobson pointed out the teenager's previous clean record and the
nature of the offence. He said: "It was not a prolonged attack. It was
clearly an unpleasant attack that caused serious injury.

"This is serious, but it is not a case where somebody's life has been ended."

Mr Hobson argued the teenager's mental health problems, which include
difficulty controlling his temper, also might make him vulnerable in custody.

He described his client as an immature and vulnerable child.

In sentencing, Mr Pringle said he had taken into account a letter written by
the boy's father and mother in his support and that he had reduced the punishment.

He said: "The injury you caused was extensive."

Mr Pringle said the teenager had not helped his case by not explaining to
police what had happened.

He said: "I hope that this is the first and only time that you come before a
criminal court.

"With the support of your family I hope you apply yourself as best you can
while you are in custody and when released get your life back on track."

Source: Swindon Advertiser

Related TDO Topic: 15-year old scumbag, allegedly
----------
Disclaimer
These press articles are intended for informational purposes only.
Statements and opinions expressed in these articles are solely those of the original Publisher.
I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any of these articles, and therefore I am not liable for any information contained therein.
Where possible, the Publisher and the source are documented within each article.
Any author that holds legal copyright, and objects to their material being posted, may request that it be removed and any future material excluded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57347
Location: 1066 Country
Cybro wrote:
When questioned by police the boy said he did not have the bag with him
but changed his story when CCTV footage of him from earlier in the night
was produced showing him with it.

Just imagine how many scumbags would get caught if CCTV was madatory, and/or what a deterrent. :-k

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Sussex wrote:
Cybro wrote:
When questioned by police the boy said he did not have the bag with him
but changed his story when CCTV footage of him from earlier in the night
was produced showing him with it.

Just imagine how many scumbags would get caught if CCTV was madatory, and/or what a deterrent. :-k


I could be wrong but I think Swindon do allow CCTV in all vehicles. I'm not a fan of making it mandatory, I think it should be left to each individual to decide whether or not they wish to install CCTV.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57347
Location: 1066 Country
JD wrote:
I'm not a fan of making it mandatory, I think it should be left to each individual to decide whether or not they wish to install CCTV.

Not an unreasonable position, but I just think sometimes drivers do need to be told what's good for them, and their punters.

Especially when I agree with the issue at hand. :D

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 315 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group