StuartW wrote:
Seems a bit OTT simply to report that this driver will stand trial for a guide dog refusal
Well this is interesting - as per above, said at time that seemed bit OTT to report that driver will simply stand trial for a guide dog refusal, but actual trial reported in glorious updated-by-the-minute detail.
Not sure why that is - whether it's a bit juicier than normal for this kind of thing, or because of the people involved, or what, but I'm sure a lot of murder trials will be given less attention by the press.
Anyway, this is it below, and has to be read from the bottom up. Did intend putting the stuff in order, but time consuming enough just getting the stuff below into some kind of presentable format.
Newcastle Uber driver trial RECAP: Taxi driver guilty of refusing to pick up blind passenger due to their doghttps://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no ... e-16082013Mohamed Alli Abdulrahim denies the allegation and is standing trial at Newcastle Magistrates' Court16.50
Defendant discharged with compensationThe defendant must pay £200 compensation to the victim, £100 costs to the council but he’s handed an absolute discharge.
16:46
Defendant 'not prejudiced'The council say they do not think the defendant is prejudiced in his day to day life.
16:45
Guilty verdict - despite "confusing picture"The defendant has been found guilty.
Magistrates admitted there was a “confusing picture” but that the doctors’ evidence was more “compelling” than that of the defence.
The court hears the prosecution “trawled” for case law regarding sentencing but it is such a rare prosecution they couldn’t find “any brackets to work with”.
The defendant faces a maximum £1,000 fine for the offence, but the council insist it wouldn’t be appropriate to go near that figure.
The court heard he quit his job as a taxi driver after he was pictured in ChronicleLive following his first court appearance.
Pleading for magistrates to consider an absolute discharge, the defendant’s solicitor states the case - which could have been dealt with in the civil court - has now “significantly dragged on”.
16:24
Bench returns to courtThe verdict will be announced soon.
15:01
Magistrates retire to consider their verdictThey say they may need some time to think.
14:56
Defence: Doctors being painted as 'beyond reproach' had been drinkingSumming up the defence, Janice Hall said: “It’s an unusual charge we do not come across in this court very often.”
She said she’s a ”little concerned” about the doctors’ jobs being used to try and paint them as being almost beyond reproach.
”It’s almost a case of doctors against taxi drivers - this is not the case,” she states, adding there were “inconsistencies” over the positioning of the witnesses at the time of the incident. And she said that while the driver was sober, the doctors admit they had been drinking.
And while they denied being drunk, the solicitor said:
“It’s human nature to underestimate how much alcohol has been consumed.
”When recollecting events when one has consumed alcohol there can be errors and mistakes made.”
14:37
Doctors called "credible and truthful"Summing up, the council says its case relies heavily on the three doctors and their “credible and truthful” evidence.
The council states there was a consistent thread throughout their evidence.
”If these facts were not true I pose the question why would they make it up,” adds the prosecution.
“There’s nothing in it for them.”
14:29
Defendant is 'a very considerate character'The court hears the defendant - who has English as a third language - was not given an interpreter during the council interview.
He adds that his car is cleaned every Monday or Tuesday - not before the weekend.
Another witness is former Uni lecturer Paul Whitehead, the dad of the defendant’s partner Dr Jenny Whitehead.
“I find him to be a very considerate character,” states the Huddersfield man.
“I’ve come across a number of people in Mohammad’s situation over the years as a lecturer,” he states about the refugee.
But he said he has welcomed him not only into his family but his social group.
But the court hears he wasn’t with the defendant when the alleged incident unfolded.
14:21
'He was being mean to me'The defendant tells the court Dr Adams’ shouting left him “scared”.
”He was being mean to me,” claims the defendant, saying he was refusing to leave the car.
But the prosecution asks if he can remember what the mean language was, he states: “I can’t remember all of the words he said.
”The prosecutor puts it to the defendant again that is because it never happened.
14:20
'The reason you didn’t say it in interview is because it isn’t true'The prosecution say while he told the council in interview that Dr Adams was “absolutely drunk” and “shouting” - he never said directly that’s why he refused the fare.
”At no point did you say he was going to vomit,” adds the prosecution.
”I’m going to suggest to you that the reason you didn’t say it in interview is because it isn’t true.”
14:17
'I swear it didn't have a harness'Abdulrahim is then cross examined by the prosecution. He is asked if he’s 100% sure if the dog didn’t have a harness on.
He said “I swear it didn’t have a harness”.
He adds you would be able to “tell” if someone was blind.
“You wouldn’t even have to ask,” claims the defendant.
”They can’t be blind all of them.”
14:16
He 'would not discriminate'“Would you discriminate against someone because they had a guide dog with them,” asks his brief. His reply - no.
14:14
Defendant quit his jobAbdulrahim says he’s now quit his job as a taxi driver.
”I feel like it’s not for me anymore,” he said, adding he’s now a security guard.
14:07
'There is no taxi driver who would clean their taxi on a Friday'He claims he’s taken “many dogs” before.
And asked if he didn’t want the dog because the dog may make a mess, having just cleaned the car, he states: “There is no taxi driver who would clean their taxi on a Friday.”
14:06
Defendant 'asked Uber not to charge the group'The court hears Uber app data shows that within four minutes off arriving the fare had been cancelled.
But he asked Uber “not to charge” the group, something he claims they may have done.
“Why did you cancel the fare?” asks his solicitor.”
Because the guy sitting in the front was very drunk,” states the defendant.
14:02
'I couldn’t see anything that makes it a guide dog'“Did you see anyone who in your opinion had an obvious visual impairment?,” asks his brief.
No, he replies, adding: “When I looked at the dog I couldn’t see anything that makes it a guide dog.
”I told the guy I can’t see any harness on it.”
But he claims he offered to take the man with the guide dog - for free - but the group claimed the dog belonged to all of them.
He claims the group moaned that they would have to pay a “double fair” if they had to get another taxi.
14:01
Discussed the dog 'after he had refused the fare'“The guy was so drunk,” adds the defendant about Dr Adams.
”If you vomit in the car how am I going to clean it?”
He said he did discuss the dog - but that was at the end of the discussion, after he had refused the fare due to Dr Adams’ alleged drunkenness.
13:57
Witness was 'being aggressive'“Was he being aggressive with you,” asks Janice Hall.
He claims he was - but his main concern was he was drunk.
As others approached, the argument continued.
“Did you take any steps to get him out the car,” asks the brief.
”Just verbal,” responded the defendant.
But he said the only person he recalls from the event was the “first person” - Dr Adams.
”He was the one I was focusing on.”
13:56
'The reason was he was so drunk'The defendant tells the court he didn’t anticipate any problem with the booking.
But after arriving at the Ship Inn, he encountered Dr Tom Adams.
”He sat in the front passenger seat,” recalls the defendant.
He claims the doctor was “struggling to talk” as he was so drunk, which caused him to be concerned.
He told him: “I’m not going to take you.”
At this point he thought he was alone, and the concern was he was drunk.
”You have to get out of the car - the reason was he was so drunk.”
Dr Adams earlier denied this.
13:48
Defendant gives evidenceThe case resumes. The 26-year-old defendant is now giving evidence.
The court hears that he moved unaccompanied to Britain in 2014 after he “fled” Sudan due to a change in the political environment.
He was granted refugee status in 2015. He was a student back in Africa and was studying to go to university.
He attended college for a “short period of time” after arriving in the U.K.
He wanted to have a “better life” back in Sudan, but is now working hard to try and get back to university, as some of his qualifications from Sudan are not recognised.
Before being a taxi driver, he claims he worked for Amazon.
“Is it the case you’ve always worked since you were permitted too, in the UK?” asks his brief.
He confirms that is the case, and said he also did voluntary work.
12:39
Trial adjourned for lunchThe morning hearing is finished. It will resume at 1.30pm, where the defendant will give evidence.
12:25
Defendant 'of previous good character'The next witness will be council officer Emma Percival, a licence enforcement officer.
Magistrates are set to read a “lengthy” interview from last July 19 involving the defendant, held under caution.
The court heard the council “took some time to make arrangements” to speak to the witnesses involved after the April 20 incident.
The court is told the defendant only found out the council wanted to speak to him about it on July 3. During that interview he said one of those witnesses was “extremely drunk”.
Asked if he could confirm the defendant is of previous good character, the officer adds: “As far as I am aware there are no previous convictions.”
The bench has retired to read the interview.
12:21
Claims group 'refused to say who the dog belonged to'The defence ask: “You as the group refused to say who the dog belonged too.
”That’s not the case,”he tells the court.
He gives the same reply to asking if they were refused because Tom was drunk.
He said he was talking to the defendant for three minutes, and said it “felt like forever.”
12:20
The dog 'was attached to him'Dr Banhan said he was “mildly apprehensive” about the dog issue.
”I’m always a bit nervous,” he tells the court.
”It opens the possibility that someone may have a few issues.”
Dr Banhan said he was in the “back left” of the taxi so he could speak to the driver, and that the dog was attached to him.
”I’d be surprised if he wasn’t visible.”
12:14
Victim 'has never been refused a taxi'He told the driver he disagreed and would “take it further”.
He said since getting a guide dog in 2014 he had never been refused a taxi.
”I’ve never been outright refused - in Newcastle it has always been very good.
”It is often a positive experience.”
12:13
Driver said 'I don't want to take the dog'He said he was left in “no doubt” why he wasn’t allowed in, claiming the defendant said: “I don’t want to take the dog.
“’A dog that size will make a mess in the car.”
He adds: ”That’s the bit that I absolutely remember.
”We were left in no doubt it was due to the dog.”
12:12
Dog's harness shown to courtThe harness on Zante today is being shown to the court. It’s luminous and makes it clear the dog was a guide dog.
He says he had “two or three” pints but also wasn’t drunk.
12:11
Victim 'knew the law was on his side'Dr Mark Banhan, the alleged victim, appears in court with his dog Zante.
He confirms he was “a little bit apprehensive” having not told Uber there was a guide dog, but that he knew the law was on his side.
“I expected the situation would be OK,” he said.
12:10
Partner was 'incensed'The court hears the group were picked up without a problem by another taxi.
It’s put to her that she was “incensed” she says: “I was frustrated and I couldn’t believe it.”
Asked by the defence if she was in fact furious, she replies: “I was not furious. I was frustrated and I was very worried if this happened again to Mark or to someone else.”
12:09
Alleged victim's partner gives evidenceThe alleged victim’s partner, Dr Rachel Moxon, a GP trainee - backs that last claim up in her evidence.
And she maintains it was “obvious” who the blind passenger was.
Asked why she flagged a complaint up, she adds: “I worry if Mark didn’t have me there how it would play out for him.
“My biggest worry is that he was left on his own.”
12:07
Driver says it was 'just Dr Adams' he refused to takeThe court hears they were so shocked by the refusal, a complaint was emailed off to Newcastle City Council that night.
Mr Abdulrahim claims he had actually offered to take the dog, its owner and another member of the group - just not Dr Adams who was “drunk”. That’s denied by him.
12:05
Witness denies being drunk and argumentativeUnder cross examination, he disputes claims the group had been drinking heavily that night and that he was actually refused because of how drunk he was.”It was not a drinking session - it was a few drinks with food.”
It was claimed Dr Adams was “barely able to speak”, with the defence claiming Mr Abdulrahim was scared he was going to vomit - claims he denies, adding: “That would be a shock to me.”
Asked if has used a widget in Uber’s app to notify the driver about the dog, Dr Adams added: “No but it’s never been a problem before.”
The court hears Dr Adams was “apprehensive” about the guide dog coming on the journey to Jesmond.
Asked again if he was being argumentative with the driver due to being drunk, he said: “That absolutely didn’t happen.”
12:04
'He's just had his car cleaned'Dr Adams claims the driver had apprehensions about letting Zante in, adding: “(The driver) said that a dog that size would leave a mess and that he’s just had his car cleaned.”
Asked how he felt to be refused, he said he was “a bit shocked”, telling Mr Abdulrahim that refusing him would constitute disability discrimination.
He adds: “He said that it’s his choice if he took us as passengers because of the dog.
“I realised we were not going to win so I exited the taxi.”
12:02
Driver 'wanted to know size of dog'The first witness, Dr Thomas Adams, claims he had two or three pints that night. He had booked the Uber, and states: “It’s normally good form to let the driver know there’s a guide dog so it doesn’t come as a surprise.”
He adds: “After I said there isa guide dog coming in, (the defendant) wanted to know the size of the dog.”
The dog is described as a Labrador cross. Called Zante, it is described as “gentle natured and friendly” and had a harness on that night.
11:59
He 'had only had licence for four months'The court heardMr Abdulrahim had only had his licence for just over four months when the incident occurred.
When he was granted that licence he signed a statement saying he “must not discriminate” against disabled passengers, the court heard.
11:56
Driver refused to pick up doctor 'because of dog'Mr Abdulrahim allegedly didn’t pick up a group of doctors from The Ship Inn, in Ouseburn, last Apri.
The court hears the Sudan-born driver was working for Uber when he refused one doctor - Mark Banhan - because of the dog.
The group had been to the Ship Inn because they wanted vegan food, the court heard.
Login
Register
FAQ
