Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Mon May 04, 2026 9:55 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
captain cab wrote:
Skull wrote:


I'm not sure about Scotland but in England the local authorities when considering those before them work on the basis of Civil Law (the balance of probabilities) not Criminal Law (beyond resonable doubt).

Additionally last year the 76 act was changed and allows LA's to take away licenses for such allegations.

CC


But what he is being accused of is a criminal act (beyond a reasonable doubt)

The balance of probabilities may have been how the council dealt with the situation but moorov must have applied in some form.

I know the council can revoke licences willy-nilly, but without a criminal conviction or anything more than single allegation, I think it would be a stretch to revoke a licence without it being overturned on appeal.

If a single allegation is enough CCTV should be made compulsory, and operational at all times.

Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it up to you to prove your innocence against the strength of unsubstantiated allegation? And how do the council when, confronted by such a case decide upon, who is in fact telling the truth?

Maybe they use a weggie board or a crystal ball, or perhaps they just intuit who is telling the truth?

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Skull wrote:

But what he is being accused of is a criminal act (beyond a reasonable doubt)

The balance of probabilities may have been how the council dealt with the situation but moorov must have applied in some form.

I know the council can revoke licences willy-nilly, but without a criminal conviction or anything more than single allegation, I think it would be a stretch to revoke a licence without it being overturned on appeal.

If a single allegation is enough CCTV should be made compulsory, and operational at all times.

Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it up to you to prove your innocence against the strength of unsubstantiated allegation? And how do the council when, confronted by such a case decide upon who is in fact telling the truth?

Maybe they use a weggie board or a crystal ball, or perhaps they just intuit who is telling the truth?


There is a stated case on this;

Leeds C.C. v Hussain BLD 2405021959, Admin Ct. 23/05/2002

Link


1) That there was no need for a finding of guilt before a suspension on grounds of pending assault charges

2) Hearsay evidence was admissible in supensions on "reasonable cause" grounds

3) The impact on a drivers livelihood if he were eventually acquitted should not properly be taken into account as an authority had to consider the effect on the travelling public of his continued working pending trial.

CC

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
captain cab wrote:
Skull wrote:

But what he is being accused of is a criminal act (beyond a reasonable doubt)

The balance of probabilities may have been how the council dealt with the situation but moorov must have applied in some form.

I know the council can revoke licences willy-nilly, but without a criminal conviction or anything more than single allegation, I think it would be a stretch to revoke a licence without it being overturned on appeal.

If a single allegation is enough CCTV should be made compulsory, and operational at all times.

Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it up to you to prove your innocence against the strength of unsubstantiated allegation? And how do the council when, confronted by such a case decide upon who is in fact telling the truth?

Maybe they use a weggie board or a crystal ball, or perhaps they just intuit who is telling the truth?


There is a stated case on this;

Leeds C.C. v Hussain BLD 2405021959, Admin Ct. 23/05/2002

Link


1) That there was no need for a finding of guilt before a suspension on grounds of pending assault charges

2) Hearsay evidence was admissible in supensions on "reasonable cause" grounds

3) The impact on a drivers livelihood if he were eventually acquitted should not properly be taken into account as an authority had to consider the effect on the travelling public of his continued working pending trial.

CC


I take your point.

"Pending"

"Reasonable Cause"

"should not properly be taken into account"

The interpretation of the above could be very broad indeed but none the less, there has to be a history.

Would a single allegation be enough to revoke a licence? :? I think it would, but if there was no history of wrong doing to speak of where would that leave you at appeal?




:?

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:06 pm
Posts: 24391
Location: Twixt Heaven and Hell, but nearest Hell
I wouldnt get mine out in this weather

a) its bloody cold, which doesnt help me....if you follow

b) one short-sighted crow and id be minus me bit....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
wannabeeahack wrote:
I wouldnt get mine out in this weather

a) its bloody cold, which doesnt help me....if you follow

b) one short-sighted crow and id be minus me bit....


Aye well, you could say you have nothing to worry about :lol: unless of course the odd short-sighted crow makes a mistake :lol:

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Skull wrote:

I take your point.

"Pending"

"Reasonable Cause"

"should not properly be taken into account"

The interpretation of the above could be very broad indeed but none the less, there has to be a history.

Would a single allegation be enough to revoke a licence? :? I think it would, but if there was no history of wrong doing to speak of where would that leave you at appeal?

:?


Not too sure, the law has changed down here, but not in my opinion for the best.

CC

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 777 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