Taxi Driver Online

Cab driver accused of having inappropriate conversation with teenage girl

https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/ ... behaviour/

A cab driver accused of inappropriate behaviour towards a teenage girl has had his appeal to renew his licence dismissed.

A complaint to police in November 2018 alleged that the driver, who operated in the Three Rivers district, had parked outside a secondary school and had an inappropriate conversation with a girl.

The police decided to take no further action and the driver was not spoken to by officers.

The complaint emerged again recently when the driver applied for his private hire licence to be renewed.

Three Rivers District Council decided to refuse the renewal application after it made an enquiry to Hertfordshire Constabulary and discovered the 2018 allegation.

The driver appealed to the magistrates' court but it was unsuccessful and following a hearing on October 21, his second appeal to the St Albans Crown Court was also dismissed.

The crown court recognised that although it was not in a position to make definitive findings of fact about what happened, it considered the incident in 2018 was sufficient concerning that it was justified in the council's decision.

The court also noted that the other allegations about the driver were tenuous but the council had been entitled to take them into account given their similarity with the 2018 allegation.

The driver was ordered to pay £2,500 in costs on top of the costs order made in the magistrates' court.

Chair of the community safety partnership, Cllr Roger Seabourne said: "Our Hackney Carriage and private hire policy has recently been reviewed and strengthened in line with the statutory guidance.

"Our officers send a clear message that individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate behaviour will be deemed as not to be 'fit and proper' or 'safe and suitable to hold a licence.

"Public safety is paramount in cases such as this."

Thought this seemed a bit harsh given that it was one allegation that police took no action on.

However, the above paragraph refers to 'the other allegations' as if the reader is supposed to know what they are, but they don't seem to be mentioned in the article. Maybe there's a paragraph missing or something.

And this bit in bold is very clunky:


Typos are common in stuff like this, but normally easy enough to work out what it's meant to say.

But can only make sense of that by changing 'sufficient' to 'sufficiently', and taking out the words 'was' and 'in'. Therefore:

[The crown court] considered the incident in 2018 sufficiently concerning that it justified the council's decision.

there's no smoke without fire as they say BUT I think this chap can probably feel aggrieved. So he was deemed fit and proper to continue to hold a license at the time but not fit and proper at renewal.

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

It seems from the passage below that the council only became aware of the allegation at renewal time, and didn't know about it when it happened. I mean, someone makes a complaint to police, they take no action, and are hardly likely to inform the council, but come renewal time and it's on your file


So it seems harsh, but as I said earlier, it's maybe something to do with the other mysterious allegations, maybe suggesting a pattern of behaviour, or similar. But, again, the article mentions the other allegations as if they're detailed elsewhere in the article, but in fact they aren't, so who knows

Ah, well, this is interesting, and clears up some of the confusion, not to mention the clunky English in the press report

So although 'churnalism' is often just a rehashed council press release, they'd have been better just copy/pasting it rather than trying to summarise or rephrase it, or whatever, which has just confused matters.

Anyway, there's slightly more detail here of the other allegations that the earlier report had half-mentioned, suggesting a pattern of behaviour.

And also the fact that he was also licensed by another council, which had given him the benefit of the doubt regarding the allegations


No smoke without fire: taxi driver not given benefit of doubt over inappropriate behaviour towards children

04th November 2020

The Crown Court at St Albans has dismissed the second appeal brought by a private hire driver following a pattern of allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards girls.

The driver, formerly licensed by Three Rivers District Council, had his application to renew his private hire driver’s licence refused after it emerged that he had been the subject of a number of allegations – although he had not been arrested or charged (let alone convicted) for any offences.

During the renewal process, a routine enquiry to Hertfordshire Police revealed that a complaint had been made against the driver in November 2018 alleging that he had been parked outside a secondary school and had an inappropriate conversation with a teenage girl. The police decided to take no further action on the allegation and the driver himself was not spoken to by police.

The driver was also licensed by a neighbouring authority who, having interviewed the driver about this allegation and earlier allegations, decided to issue a warning. Three Rivers took a different view and refused to renew the driver’s licence.

The driver appealed unsuccessfully to the Magistrates’ Court and, following a hearing on 21 October, his second appeal to the Crown Court was also dismissed.

In giving its judgment, the Crown Court placed particular emphasis on the Department for Transport’s recently-issued statutory guidance for licensing authorities and the instruction that authorities should not give the benefit of the doubt to drivers when deciding on questions of fitness and propriety.

The court recognised that it was not in a position to make definitive findings of fact about what had happened but considered that the November incident was (of itself) sufficiently concerning that it justified the Council’s decision. The court noted that the other allegations about the driver were tenuous but that the Council had been entitled to take them into account given their similarity with the November incident.

The appeal was therefore dismissed and the driver was ordered to pay £2,500 in costs on top of the costs order made in the Magistrates’ Court.

Cllr Roger Seabourne Lead Member for Community Safety and Chair of the Community Safety Partnership said: “Our Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy has recently been reviewed and strengthened in line with the Statutory Guidance. Our officers send a clear message that individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate behaviour will be deemed as not to be ‘fit and proper’ or ‘safe and suitable’ to hold a Hackney Carriage or Private Hire Licence. Public safety is paramount in cases such as this. Officers, when coming to their decision, will always consider our suitability policy which states ‘Would you allow your son or daughter, spouse or partner, mother or father, grandson or granddaughter or any other person for whom you care, to get into a vehicle with this person alone?’"

This case should set an example to all existing and new drivers that any inappropriate behaviour is extremely serious and although some reports may not lead to prosecution, details of incidents can be taken into consideration by the licensing authority, and may, as in this case, lead to the individual losing their licence.

No smoke without fire?

Is that an appropriate way for a council to summarise a decision by a quasi-judicial body under its jurisdiction?


Is that a reasonable summary of the law??

Makes it sound like any sort of allegation at all would mean a driver loses his badge

Interesting so presumably he was licensed by two separate councils simultaneously

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

Certainly looks like that. Doubt if it's that unusual, but hardly an everday occurence. Maybe to do different contracts in different areas, or something like that?

Vehicle licensing a different kettle of fish, though. I remember one case years ago when someone wanted to plate an HC for both Dundee and Perth. So dual plates, dual meters etc

There was a bit of a fuss about it, but think he eventually got permission. But obviously pretty odd set of circumstances, and I'm guessing it didn't last long.

I think the court/DfT are saying that the balance of probability now applies against the license holder, in that the onus is more on him to disprove the council's case rather than the council's case to prove their's. In respect of sexual/violence allegations.

So no it doesn't mean that any allegation will mean the driver loses their license, just that it will be easier for councils to revoke and harder for drivers to defend.

Times have changed, and when one reads all those articles from the recent past about the mass abuse of school girls, then maybe it's time they did.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well that certainly sounds a bit more, er, nuanced than the crude way that the council portrayed it

Can't say I'm an expert on these things, but I don't think the *standard of proof* has changed. It's still on the balance of probabilities. What has changed, I think, is the burden or onus of proof, which is now on the licence holder. Which is obviously a difficult thing to even write about in theory, and get your head around, never mind in the context of a licensing committee

But, in a nutshell, the way the council have portrayed it here makes it sound, to me at least, that the standard of proof has changed, when it hasn't. It's the burden of proof that's different.


Indeed, but the problem is maybe that some councils will go to the other extreme, and innocents will be caught up in their gung ho approach. And that's one ongoing problem with licensing and law enforcement more generally, in my opinion. I could cite a few examples, but maybe not.

However, the Alex Salmond case is possibly illustrative. Of course, some of the charges were serious, while others pretty trivial. But might never have gotten to court a few years ago, and probably wouldn't have even been investigated if Salmond had been an ordinary member of the public, like the manager of a back street pub.

By the same token, in the Three Rivers case, I suspect there was something in it. But suppose someone had a vendetta against the driver, and spurious complaints were lodged by different girls, who seemed unconnected, but in reality were acting in concert. Doubt if that actually was the case, but stranger things have happened.

And indeed that's effectively what Alex Salmond's supporters are accusing the Sturgeonites of - basically conspiring to concoct and exaggerate stuff in order to bring him down and make sure he's a spent force in politics, and thus no threat to Nicola

Which is maybe getting a bit away from the Three Rivers stuff, and I'm not saying they're wrong. But there's just something about the council's attitude here that's not right.

Check out the highlighted text here, for example. Kind of sounds like they're bragging a bit about how they can take a driver out on the flimsiest of allegations:

Not sure they are bragging, more a case of them saying despite us taking the view that he is not 'fit and proper', we also want to point out that he has never been convicted etc etc.

Now it's fair to say I'm not a great supporter of many licensing departments, but on the the sexual/violent assault issue it's quite a thankless task for them when deciding on the fitness and propriety of applicants, especially applications for existing license holders.

Are councils being more strict? Maybe, but I suspect everyone of us must question from time to time how some current drivers remain licensed.

_________________
IDFIMH

These types of decisions are determined by Councillors by applying the rules of probability.

“During the renewal process, a routine enquiry to Hertfordshire Police revealed that a complaint had been made against the driver in November 2018 alleging that he had been parked outside a secondary school and had an inappropriate conversation with a teenage girl. The police decided to take no further action on the allegation and the driver himself was not spoken to by police.“

I can’t believe this has gone against him, the police didn’t even speak to him about “an allegation” ???

Maybe not 'bragging' so much, but the 'no smoke without fire' thing just doesn't seem right for this kind of stuff. It's like they're playing politics rather than a quasi-judicial process.

And the words 'let alone convicted' here also caught my eye. Kind of reads either like someone bragging slightly, or in fact the opposite - someone writing something critical about the decision.

"...although he had not been arrested or charged (let alone convicted) for any offences."


Yes, I don't doubt it's difficult, but that points to the inherent problem with licensing committees and councils. There's too much of a temptation to go politicking, or effectively pay too much attention to the PR angle.


Well indeed, but of course the problem with Rotherham etc wasn't the burden of proof, or anything like that

And, on a wider note, and as you've said yourself frequently, the IoL's guidance is way over the top

Indeed, but I suspect the other allegations were also relevant in that they pointed to a pattern of behaviour, but unfortunately there's not much detail in that regard.

But presumably police knew about the other claims, so seems very odd that they didn't speak to him.

Of course, the licensing committee may well have got it right. But I'm sure other councils would have done nothing, so to that extent the whole process is problematic