Taxi Driver Online

Luckless cabbie Barry Lewis was having a very expensive day

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Luckless cabbie Barry Lewis had a very expensive day.

First he lost a crown court appeal against a conviction for smoking in his taxi.


Barry Lewis finds a ticket on his cab after losing an appeal over smoking at the wheel

He was ordered to pay £200, on top of the £500 the case had already cost him.

Then when he left the court, he found he'd overstayed his parking allocation, and a £60 ticket was stuck to his car.

The 51-year-old of Queen Street, Cheltenham, had been convicted by magistrates of smoking illegally in his cab.

He appealed to Gloucester Crown Court, saying he had actually been using an electronic substitute cigarette.

Recorder Jonathan Fuller QC, sitting with two magistrates, dismissed the appeal.

Prosecuting, James Byrne said an enforcement officer working in St James Street, Cheltenham, on February 9 , saw Lewis driving his cab with a half-smoked cigarette in his hand and the window open.

The officer, Clive Evans, told the court he recognised the car as a taxi and knew the owner was Mr Lewis.

"He was driving towards me at about 20 mph," he said.

"Mr Lewis had his arm resting on the open window and between his fingers I saw a partly smoked cigarette. I saw smoke coming from it.

"I saw Mr Lewis half an hour later standing by his taxi and told him what I had seen. He did not deny it and asked if I had a photo of him. I issued him with a fixed penalty notice.

"I saw him again some time later and asked why he had not paid the fine. He said he had a mortgage to pay."

Mr Lewis told the court he had been using a very realistic electronic cigarette and he demonstrated it to the court.

"I used to smoke in the past but I don't now," he said.

"By February I was only having the odd cigarette and trying to stop. I was using the electronic cigarette to try and help."

He said the end of the substitute cigarette glowed and the smoker exhaled what looked like smoke but it was a type of menthol. "I never smoke in my taxi," he said.

"It's not allowed, and customers don't like it."

Defending, Adam Harbinson said the electronic cigarette looked realistic.

Source; http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ ... story.html

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Interesting then because this could potentially be cited as case law against others smoking electronic cigarettes which people assume are not banned because if I have read this right it was not proven that he was smoking a real cigarette just that he was smoking

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Our LO has said it's OK to use the electronic cigarette in our taxis because it's vapour and not smoke that is emitted from the device.

_________________
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Believe me, don't get Mercury X2

It's illegal to smoke in a taxi it's not illegal to suck on a bit of plastic. The worse thing that could happen is swallowing the 'filter' end if it managed to work loose

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

The problem seems to be proving that you are using an electronic cigarette rather than a real one.

_________________
Grandad,

The problem is, he should have denied all knowledge of what he was being accused. By speaking to the alleged offence he acted as a witness against himself. Without photographic evidence or independent witnesses, it would have never made it into court.

He probably thought he was trying to prove his innocence, but in fact, was establishing his guilt.

Remember, if your lips are moving you are digging a hole for yourself-keep your mouth shut.

"I saw Mr Lewis half an hour later standing by his taxi and told him what I had seen. He did not deny it and asked if I had a photo of him. I issued him with a fixed penalty notice.

"I saw him again some time later and asked why he had not paid the fine. He said he had a mortgage to pay."

Mr Lewis told the court he had been using a very realistic electronic cigarette and he demonstrated it to the court. BIG, fecking mistake.

I've always wondered why in all other areas of law there has to be supporting evidence (DNA, photo, video, witnesses), yet when it comes to LA's the word of one officer is deemed acceptable. I've seen many cases where people have been prosecuted for things such as littering, dog fouling and smoking where the only evidence presented was 'the officer saw x commit the offence'.

Are the offenders admitting the offence or the courts accepting what the officer says as gospel ? Why are'nt solicitors advising that without any other evidence there is no case ? What if a dodgy LO decided he didn't like a particular driver who they knew smoked and just says they saw them smoking in a cab ?

I know of cases where the police have done someone for speeding and it was thrown out of court because the police car was single manned and had no video and the defence asked 'where's your evidence ?'

If you speak to the alleged offence, you are acting as a witness against yourself. If, on the other hand, you deny all knowledge or refuse to comment, what does your accuser have in the way of corroboration? I would suggest, feck all. By attempting to prove your innocence (giving a statement to that effect) you may be establishing your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, hence, a court appearance.

It may be too late for your solicitor to save your ass after you've made a statement. As you are now effectively acting as a witness for the prosecution. Not that it really matters to him because once you've gobbed off, he's in it for the cash.

I could be wrong, but I always thought it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove your guilt, and that might mean finding their own witnesses and evidence.

I would be interested in any solicitor out there explaining where I have it wrong?

Oh and Sasha, very few solicitors make money out of challenging the law and the way it's written. They do, however, make pots of cash out of jumping their clients through the processes of law and its administration. Any solicitor will tell you that Law and Justice are two almost completely different things. Don't expect justice simply because they apply the Law.


Oh and don't expect it to change anytime soon, for them, it's all about the money, lots and lots of money.