Taxi Driver Online

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't two week suspensions and the like normally reserved for more naughty-trade related stuff such as plying for hire and cherrypicking, as opposed to crimes of violence?

My money's on Sussex being distinctly unimpressed by this one


Somerset taxi driver banned for two weeks after assault

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/som ... wo-2752988

'Driver M' dodged a permanent ban because of their 'obvious regret'

A Somerset taxi driver has had his licence suspended for two weeks after he received a caution for an assault over the Christmas period.

The individual, known only as Driver M, holds a Hackney carriage driver's licence, issued by Sedgemoor District Council in Bridgwater, which allows him to operate a private hire vehicle throughout the district.

Driver M came before the council's licensing and gambling panel after they disclosed they had been given a conditional caution by Avon and Somerset Constabulary for an assault involving "an ex-family member".

The panel decided that the driver had "failed to maintain" his legal duty to protect the public, and only decided against banning them from a licence altogether on the basis of the driver's "obvious contrition and regret."

The outcome of the confidential hearing was published before a meeting of the council's licensing and general purposes committee on Wednesday (April 10).

The council has a legal duty to protect the public through its licenses, and can only issue licenses to individuals deemed to be "fit and proper" to hold them.

Driver M told the panel the caution related to an incident over Christmas, admitting that they had "assaulted an ex-family member, with whom there had been a long-running dispute."

The panel heard that Driver M had two previous convictions for battery dating back to 2008.

The driver responded that they had "taken the rap" for another individual in one of these cases; in the other, they had "over-reacted when his car windscreen had been smashed."

Driver M's employer - who has also not been identified - described them as "a highly-regarded employee", who had been with the company for four years.

Official guidance from the Institute of Licensing recommends that any individual with a conviction for a violent offence, or connected with any such offence, should not be granted any licence until ten years after the end of any sentence imposed.

The panel commended Driver M for notifying them at the soonest possibility after the caution had been accepted, and said it was "to their credit" that they had committed no other criminal offences between 2008 and 2019.

However, it agreed there were "grave concerns" about the public's safety and said the fact that the assault was not related to Driver M's trade was "largely irrelevant."

The panel ultimately decided to suspend Driver M's licence for a period of two weeks.

A council spokesperson said: "Driver M should be under no illusion that to hold a Hackney carriage driver licence is a privilege and not a right, and that we as the licensing authority, take our responsibility seriously.

"Were it not for their obvious contrition and regret, together with the support of their employer, their licence would have been close to a full revocation."

Does it matter if it's just a caution rather than a conviction?

Don't necessarily agree with IoL's guidelines, but think driver got off lightly here, and two-week suspension seems a bit daft for something like this.

For a domestic assault he should have never been given a conditional caution, in my opinion.


So this was the third conviction for violence in the last 10 years?


But the cherry on the top of the cake is his admission that he has committed either perjury, or perverting the course of justice.

_________________
IDFIMH

_________________
IDFIMH

It shouldn't do.

To receive a caution you have to admit guilt.

_________________
IDFIMH

nowt as queer as councillors !!

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

Suppose that if I was a councillor I'd assume that a caution would only be an option in less serious cases. But of course not much in the way of detail in the press report as opposed to that available (presumably) to councillors.

There are three levels of offence. Summary, either way and indictable.

Most cautions are for summary offences, some are for low level either way, as of a few years ago none are for indictable offences.

Thus a councillor who assumed cautions are for only low level offences isn't that far off the mark, but sometimes they are given, depending on the circumstances, for more serious offences.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, as the IoL's guidance states:



But all this perhaps underlines the crude and draconian nature of the IoL's guidelines. Recall:



So this case drives a coach and horses through that but, on the other hand, ten years does seem a long time for a minor assault, depending on the precise circumstances.

Perhaps a *minimum* of two years, or something like that would be more appropriate, which would give councillors sufficient leeway regarding more serious offences of violence.

(Note that the IoL simply state "ten years", not a *minimum* of ten years, or whatever.)

But case provides a precedent of sorts as regards the unsuitability of the IoL's guidelines.

Of course, it should be borne in mind that in the final analysis the IoL's document can only ever be *guidelines*, and aren't hard and fast rules.

That said, since they're just guidelines it might have been a bit better if the IoL hadn't been quite as hard and fast in the way that they portray their guidance, the single paragraph on 'Offences involving violence' considered here being a case in point.

This guidance is written by idiots who should know better.

You can get a conviction for common assault without actually touching someone, which although is not a good thing to do to someone, it shouldn't bar them for good from our trade.

_________________
IDFIMH