Taxi Driver Online

Chief magistrate's alleged bias toward Uber raised in court

The alleged bias of the chief magistrate, Emma Arbuthnot, in permitting Uber to operate in London has been raised in a courtroom challenge.

In June, the judge approved a 15 month probationary licence but then agreed not to hear any future Uber-related cases after the Observer revealed her husband works for a strategy firm that advised one of Uber’s largest investors.

At the high court on Wednesday, the counsel for United Cabbies Group, who oppose Uber running services in the capital, argued that Arbuthnot had not relied on the correct, statutory test in her decision and had failed to check whether her family had a financial interest in the issue.

Robert Griffiths QC, representing United Cabbies, told the court in written submissions that the chief magistrate should have asked her husband, Lord Arbuthnot, about his company’s involvement.

Lord Arbuthnot, a former Tory MP for Wanstead and Woodford and chair of the defence select committee, had been a director of SC Strategy Ltd. One of the company’s clients is the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) which, Griffiths told the court, is “widely reported to be a significant financial investor in Uber”.

Griffiths said: “In this case a simple question by the district judge of her husband – ‘Can you please check on whether you or any of the companies in respect of which you are a chairman, director or consultant have any direct or indirect association with Uber or Transport for London?’ – would have resulted in the identification of any potential conflicts of interest which the judge would either have been able to disclose to the parties or enable her in a timely manner to recuse herself from hearing the case.”

He added: “In our submission, there is a duty on a judge especially when dealing with high profile matters of this kind which have a significant element of public interest to check on whether there are any likely disqualifying interests which she should disclose to the parties on the basis that prima facie they may evidence a conflict of interest in respect of which the judge should recuse herself … Once the suspicion of bias has been created it colours the mind of even the fair minded and informed observer and the perception of continuing bias is perpetuated.”

Addressing the high court, Griffiths alleged that Arbuthnot did not have legal powers to grant Uber a probationary licence on the grounds that they “may become a fit and proper person” to operate the service. The correct test, he said, was whether or not they had already reached that standard.

Philip Kolvin QC, counsel for Uber, told the court: “The attack on the judge’s impartiality and decision-making by non-parties to the appeal, who also happen to be trade competitors of Uber, is without substance and should be rejected.

“It is clear that the judge understood and applied the correct test, finding that Uber was, at the time of the decision, fit and proper to hold the licence.”

Uber’s application for a five-year licence was rejected by TfL in September 2017.

TfL had a number of concerns with the firm, including failure to report criminal allegations to the police and the use of technology to thwart regulators outside the UK.

The chief magistrate issued the shorter licence with stringent conditions after concluding the firm had made “rapid and very recent” changes.

The appeal continues. The judgment is expected to be reserved.

Following a separate Uber case involving its operations in Reading, allegations have this week been made about another judge, Lord Justice Flaux, and his connections to the tech firm.

Flaux recently heard a high court case in which Reading council appealed against a decision in Uber’s favour. Flaux’s son, it is claimed, works for an insurance company which has links to Uber.

Responding to the allegation, a spokesman for the judiciary said: “Lord Justice Flaux was not aware of any connection between Aon (where his son is an associate director specialising in political risks insurance) and Uber. This is the first time that any suggestion of a connection has been brought to the judge’s attention.

“The judge would consider on its facts whether any future case constituted a perceived conflict of interest which required him either to declare it to the parties or to ask that another judge hear the case. He has no other cases pending which involve Uber.”

_________________
IDFIMH

They all went to the same posh schools,they all p..s in the same pot,we know that.

Decision on this matter due on Tuesday 26th Feb.

_________________
IDFIMH

Not really a lot of point in reading this article (from earlier this morning) now that the court has issued its judgement, as per the other thread.

Court to rule on taxi drivers’ challenge to Uber’s London licence

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-26/cou ... n-licence/

The High Court is to rule on a legal challenge against Uber’s London operating licence by taxi drivers who claim the judge who granted it was “biased”.

The United Cabbies Group Ltd (UCG), which represents Hackney carriage drivers in the capital, says Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot’s decision to grant Uber a 15-month permit was “tainted by actual or apparent bias”.

The licence was granted on a “probationary” basis at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in June last year after Transport for London (TfL) refused to renew it amid safety concerns.

But the judge said in August she would not hear any further cases involving the ride-hailing app after a newspaper article alleged there were financial connections between her husband, Lord Arbuthnot, and Uber.

At a hearing in London earlier this month, lawyers for UCG acknowledged the judge was unaware of any such links but said she should have “checked for any potential conflicts of interest” before making her decision on Uber’s licence.

They also argued the decision was not open to her because Uber did not meet the “fit and proper person” criteria necessary for holding a licence.

Robert Griffiths QC, for UCG, told Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and Mr Justice Supperstone that it was “significant” the judge did not say she was “satisfied” the taxi firm met the criteria.

He added: “In our submission, what the learned judge has done is to grant a temporary licence to (Uber) on the basis that it may become a fit and proper person.”

Lawyers for Uber said the alleged connection between Lord Arbuthnot and Uber was “at best extremely tenuous” and the judge was unaware of it.

They also argued the judge applied the correct test and did make a finding the firm was fit and proper to hold the licence.

Philip Kolvin QC said: “The court will have noted that the issue of Uber’s fitness received the most exhaustive consideration both by its regulator, TfL and by the judge.

“The attack on the judge’s impartiality and decision-making by non-parties to the appeal, who also happen to be trade competitors of Uber, is without substance and should be rejected.”

Uber’s application for a five-year licence was rejected by TfL in September 2017.

TfL had a number of concerns with the firm, including failure to report criminal allegations to police and the use of technology to thwart regulators outside the UK.

Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot issued the shorter licence with stringent conditions after concluding the firm had made “rapid and very recent” changes.

In her ruling, she was critical of the firm, saying its failure to inform police of criminal allegations “lacked common sense” and that it had painted a “false picture” of its processes.

Following the article in the Observer newspaper in August, she assigned a licensing appeal by Uber she was due to hear in Brighton to another judge and said she would not sit in future cases involving the firm.

In a statement issued at the time, a spokesman for the judiciary said: “Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot did not know the Qatar Investment Authority for which her husband had acted as an adviser was a shareholder in Uber or had any links with Uber.

“Lord Arbuthnot was not aware that the Qatar Investment Authority was a shareholder in Uber or that it had any links to Uber.

“This is the first time that such a connection has been brought to the Chief Magistrate’s attention.”

The spokesman added: “It is essential that judges not only are, but are seen to be, absolutely impartial.”

Lord Burnett and Mr Justice Supperstone also heard submissions from TfL and the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association, which previously made representations to Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot.

The judges will give their ruling in the case, brought against Westminster Magistrates’ Court, on Tuesday.

An Uber spokeswoman said: “We’ve made lasting changes to our business over the last year and a half.

“We’ve introduced new safety features in the app for riders and better protections for drivers.

“Since the court ruling in June we have launched emergency assistance so riders can connect directly with the emergency services through the app.

“This is one of a series of improvements we’re making for both passengers and drivers, and we continue to listen, learn and improve.”