Taxi Driver Online

Interesting case as regards quasi-judicial stuff, the standard of proof required etc.


Somerset taxi driver loses licence amid claims he drove while on cannabis

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/som ... ce-7823286

It is the second time he has been accused of driving passengers while stoned

A Somerset taxi driver has had his licence revoked after allegedly driving while stoned with passengers on board.

The driver, known only as Driver X, came to the attention of Avon and Somerset Constabulary in late-September after reporting driving under the influence of cannabis while he had passengers in his taxi. Sedgemoor District Council's licensing team chose to revoke Driver X's Hackney carriage licence on October 12, on the basis that this was his second similar offence within a six-month period.

While the police's investigation remains ongoing, the council's licensing panel has now confirmed this revocation, meaning Driver X will no longer be able to operate as a taxi driver in Bridgwater, Burnham-on-Sea, Cheddar, Highbridge or any of the surrounding villages. The council's licensing panel met in confidential session on November 9, with its decision being subsequently published on the council's official website.

The police disclosed information to the council's licensing team using what is known as a 'common law disclosure' - where information is shared between public bodies in order to protect the public, even where formal charges have not yet been brought. Under the council's policies, only a "fit and proper person" may hold a taxi or Hackney carriage licence, with the public's safety being a very high priority.

The police stated that they encountered Driver X on September 25, where he was alleged to have been driving under the influence of cannabis with fare-paying customers on board. This was the second time Driver X had been accused of this behaviour, following an earlier report of driving under the influence of cannabis in May, for which he was subsequently charged by police.

Driver X had disclosed the May allegation to the council's licensing team and had been advised that "any further incidents or allegations of a similar nature would mean immediate revocation" of his licence. A council spokesman said: "The panel acknowledged that neither case against Driver X was concluded.

"However, the allegations were most serious and both were alleged to have taken place while Driver X was driving their Hackney carriage. We and the public expect the highest standards of behaviour and integrity of those who are licensed to drive taxis.

"While neither case had reached a conclusion, we were advised that Driver X had been charged for driving with well over double the limit for cannabis in respect of the May offence. While neither case was concluded, it was apparent that Driver X was driving with cannabis in their system, and such behaviour fell well below the test for a fit and proper person to hold a Hackney driver’s licence, and it was to be seen as to whether those actions resulted in a criminal conviction in the future.

"In the interests of public safety, Driver X’s Hackney carriage driver’s licence shall remain revoked."

Interesting the way the highlighted part is worded - makes it sound like it was a proven fact that he was driving with cannabis in his system. Technically, maybe they should have said something along the lines of the committee concluding that on the balance of probabilities he'd driven with cannabis in his system?

And maybe a bit strange that he was merely warned as regards the first incident that's resulted in police charges, but there's no charge as yet for the second incident, yet he's now revoked?

Seems to me they were a bit lenient first time round.

And couldn't they have just suspended him until the criminal process has concluded? (Think there's maybe a procedural problem with that, but I can't quite recall what it is )

If he is exonerated in court the council could be in trouble

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

He won't be.

I suspect for the first charge he is waiting for his trial, which I would imagine is quite soon. He will be found guilty, or more to the point he will change his plea to guilty on the day. 100% guaranteed.

To mount a credible defence against drug or drink driving will cost up to £6-10,000, due to the costs of expert witnesses and expert reports required to counter the evidence from the CPS.

This fella is playing the system by pleading not guilty when charged in the full knowledge the trial will be many months down the line, thus allowing him to carry on working.

_________________
IDFIMH

The two scenarios are not inconsistent in principle, though, because of the different standards of proof in a criminal court and a licensing committee.

I mean, if police had decided there was insufficient evidence to charge him, it would still be open to councillors to deem him not fit and proper, because a lesser evidential threshold is required under the latter process.

Or if he 'got off' the criminal charge because of a technicality, say, then it would still be open to the licensing committee to have his badge.

That is the only way people charged with drink/drug driving get off.

But once the CPS has charged someone that's as good as a conviction for these offences. By then they have checked the police have adhered to the law.

_________________
IDFIMH

Licensing Committees base decisions on the scenario of probability.