Dusty Bin wrote:
But unless you think there are prima facie grounds to think that the sheriff got his legal reasoning wrong, rather than just lumping him in with the unfairness of the system generally then it might be a better idea not to call his judgement into question in this way. He was dealing with one particular aspect of the system on a strictly legal basis rather than looking at the thing in a wider sense and from the moral and political perspective.
As I recall it in a way its not dissimilar to the Dundee case, where the Taxi Cab Company set the ball rolling and applied for 70 licences, but there were a number of other applications as well. The council threw them all out, and DTCC appealed, but the others were scared off at this point and didn't appeal.
Thus DTCC got their plates via the court judgement, but the other applicants got nothing.
Clearly unfair - particularly as DTCC got 70 or so plates while those originally applying for just one plate got nowt - but that was of no concern to the sheriff because only DTCC had appealed.
It's the rest of the thing that stinks rather than the legal system per se.
And I suspect you've got more chance of getting change in taxi legislation and policy rather than taking on the fundamentals of the legal system.
This was a test case through a group action of some seventeen applicants all of whom applied in almost identical circumstances. Donald was the tip of the sword. The Sheriff had unfettered discretion in coming to his decision just like Sheriff Liddle in the Salteri case. He didn't have to draw his ruling so tight that it cut off the air supply to the other applicants.
I was in court with the 3maxblack case and lost the decision through Sheriff Mackay. In identical circumstance Sheriff Liddle then granted in favour of Salteri even though the Salteri case went before him unrepresented. Sheriff Liddle's ruling carried the case all the way to the court of session. On appeal, Sheriff Bowen looked at the case anew and still gave the decision in favour of Salteri. It was without a doubt the Liddle ruling that brought the council down. This was JUSTICE.
The point I am making is that upon knowing the circumstances of the case. Sheriff Noble decided to dispense a ruling in LAW, which favoured the council but failed to deliver JUSTICE, protecting all whose rights were abused by the council.
As Plato said “he doesn't know what justice is,
but he knows what justice is not”. A strong Sheriff like Gordon Liddle would have delivered Justice and not simply a ruling that granted a licence.
Sheriff Noble knew exactly what he was doing, and gave a ruling which protected the establishment.
Dusty, you make a good case for the Sheriff, the establishment and the law but not Justice. Now remind why people take their grievances through the courts? What is it, we are all looking for when our rights have been abused by a powerful public body which is supposed to protect our rights?
I am getting slightly confused now, if Kenny Donald won the test case and as we know the Sherriff deemed a Grant, the other 16 guys in the legal group action with identical cases should automatically be granted as well, that is my understanding. Why the hell would the group fork out money for Advocates and Solicitors on the understanding that if the Test Case was successful there still MIGHT NOT be a chance that any of the 16 were successful? it does not make any sense to me at this moment in time. I do not think that the Group Action would have went ahead if that were the case. The council has until 3rd June if they want to appeal the Judgement, who knows if they will or they wont, but if they do then IMO it's a Vexatious appeal. Legal Meaning below
Login
Register
FAQ
- it just can't have less than the SUD specified number.
