Taxi Driver Online

Its always Arcacia Road

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

A few years ago the council used to shift the "problem families" from Grantham to Stamford there was an immediate increase in drug dealing locally and a lot of Wait and return fares to Grantham which may have been supply runs some drivers got wise to this and refused the runs but neither the police or the council have ever issued guidance on the matter so why should drivers be held responsible for what their passengers get up to ?

I suspect that this driver had done the run on MORE than one occassion and was aware of what was going on because I doubt that the police would prosecute if it was the first time he had picked the bloke up

Indeed.


This thread highlights a potential minefield.

One of the drivers up here got tangled up in some sort of drugs run, but there was LOT of gear involved.

He spent several months in jail on remand but they eventually let him out and he ended up back on the taxis.

I only spoke to him about it briefly, but I think he said his mistake was to say to police (who had been following the car) that he suspected something dodgy was going on

I suspect very strongly that this case may well be the fore runner to the above case. If it isn't then it has an uncanny resemblence.

R v A (2008)

CA (Crim Div) (Richards LJ, Silber J, Sir Christopher Holland) 10/7/2008

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE : NO CASE TO ANSWER : SUPPLY OF DRUGS : TERMINATORY RULINGS : DRUG DEAL IN TAXI : KNOWLEDGE OF TAXI DRIVER : APPROPRIATENESS OF STOPPING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DEFENDANT GAVE EVIDENCE : s.28 MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1971

A terminating ruling was reversed as the decision to terminate the proceedings should not have been made until after the accused taxi driver had given evidence, as his knowledge of a drug deal that took place whilst the taxi was stopped should have been tested and it was for him to prove his defence.

The Crown applied under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.58 for leave to bring an interlocutory appeal against a terminating ruling that had the effect of acquitting the defendant taxi driver (T) of supplying Class A drugs. Undercover police officers had called a suspected drug dealer to buy heroin and they had arranged to meet. T drove the drug dealer to meet the officers. Once at the meeting spot T flashed his lights and the dealer shouted for just one of the officers to come over to the car. The deal took place and the dealer asked T for change, which he gave him. He then drove off with T. In interview, T stated that he often drove the dealer around for £20 an hour and that nothing illegitimate had taken place before. Although he admitted it looked suspicious, he said that he did not know that a drug deal had been taking place and did not think that his passenger was a drug dealer as he had a laptop on his lap. He also said that the dealer had asked him to flash his lights. After the prosecution evidence T made a submission of no case to answer, which was accepted on the basis that there was no direct evidence that T had any knowledge that his passenger was a drug dealer and even if he did think that the situation was suspicious he was in a compromising situation and that therefore it was unsafe to leave the case to the jury. The Crown submitted that there was a prima facie case that T participated in the supply of drugs.

HELD: The appeal was well founded. The reasons given by the judge did not provide a sustainable answer to a submission of no case to answer on the facts. There was sufficient evidence on which the jury could properly convict. T should have given evidence and the burden would have been upon him to prove his defences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 s.28. It was not appropriate to place reliance on T's self-serving interview statement. Whether there was enough evidence on which a jury could properly convict T was a matter for consideration after he had given evidence and not before.

The terminating ruling was reversed and a retrial was ordered.

Appeal allowed

Counsel:
For the defendant: M McKone
For the Crown: RA Clews

(Unreported)

my hat goes off to you JD.

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

But you don't wear a hat?

In that case I'll buy one and then take it off

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

The key here is that the drivers mentioned took the supplier. Doubt they would bother if you had a punter that stopped at a friend's house on the way home to pick up something (although as soon as you realise what is going on you should terminate the hiring) . Also in this particular case 'after giving a drug dealer a lift to a pub car park' was the key phrase indicating that this was not a normal taxi/mini cab hire but a regular arrangement that the police had previously observed because they had the dealer under surveillance.