Taxi Driver Online

So many questions.

No excusing the driver's actions, but I'd guess this account of what happened is a tad one-sided.

For a start, no information as to whether it was HC or PH, or regulated fare, or whatever...

Well over 200 comments on the Chronicle's website, but can't be bothered looking...

But a group of lads on a stag night in Newcastle, eh?


Newcastle taxi driver jailed for deliberately knocking down passenger on his stag weekend

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no ... y-28329093

Musum Chowdhury, of Newcastle, left Matt McCarthy seriously injured by driving into him after trying to hike his fare from £10 to £50


Image: Chronicle Live/Northumbria Police

A taxi driver has been jailed after deliberately knocking down a passenger who had been enjoying his stag weekend in Newcastle.

Matt McCarthy was having pre-wedding fun with pals when they were picked up by cabbie Musum Chowdhury, who took them from the city centre to their hotel in Jesmond. A court heard there had been no problem during the short trip but when one of the men tried to pay the £10 fare by card, Chowdhury demanded cash.

Mr McCarthy said he would go to a nearby cashpoint but the taxi driver then hiked the fare to £20 then to £50 and locked the groom-to-be in the car. After letting him out, he then sped at him, with the wheels of his car spinning and screeching, mounting the pavement to run him over and causing serious injuries in an attack caught on shocking CCTV footage.

Newcastle Crown Court heard it was in May last year that Mr McCarthy and some friends were staying at the Kenilworth Hotel, on Osborne Road, Jesmond for his stag weekend. After socialising in Newcastle city centre, they got a taxi driven by Chowdhury back to the hotel.

The court heard the journey was uneventful, with no conversation with Chowdhury and the friends talking among themselves about the evening they had enjoyed. When they got to the hotel, Chowdhury told them the fare was £10 but when one of the men tried to pay by card, he said he wanted cash and then said the fare was £20.

Mr McCarthy said he would go with the cabbie to a nearby cashpoint and his friends got out and went into the hotel. Mr McCarthy withdrew the £20 and got back in the back of the taxi. Kevin Wardlaw, prosecuting, told Newcastle Crown Court: "The defendant then became aggressive, saying the fare was £50 and he kept repeating 'more'.

"As they arrived back at the hotel, Mr McCarthy placed the £20 on the centre console and asked where the fare meter was. The defendant replied 'it's nothing to do with you' and became more aggressive and locked Mr McCarthy in the taxi."

The passenger responded by saying "Here's the £20 now let me out and stop taking the ****." Chowdhury then unlocked the car and Mr McCarthy got out.

Mr Wardlaw said: "Mr McCarthy began walking away and heard the defendant shouting at him out of the window he had wound down. He ignored the defendant and became aware of the taxi reversing.

"He heard the sound of tyres screeching and wheels spinning. He lost consciousness and his next recollection is waking up on the pavement covered in blood."

A passing pedestrian came to his aid and he later attended hospital and was found to have a wound to the side of his right eye, a black eye, grazing to the side of his face and tenderness to his lip.

Mr McCarthy has no recollection of what happened but a witness heard screeching tyres and looked to see Chowdhury's taxi collide with him before fleeing at speed. A passing police officer was flagged down and a small pool of blood was found on the path, together with a headlamp washer cover plate.

Meanwhile, Chowdhury had contacted the police to try to cover his back, claiming he had been attacked and that the victim had struck his wing mirror as he drove off. However, there was no damage to the wing mirror and prosecutors did not accept his version of events.

Police recovered CCTV from a nearby premises which revealed what had actually happened. Mr Wardlaw said: "It shows the defendant reversing his taxi. Mr McCarthy comes into view on the footpath before the defendant accelerates forwards, causing the wheels to spin and he drove directly at Mr McCarthy, striking him with the front nearside of the car and driving off."

The court heard the victim feared for his life and has been left with a permanent scar and it has had a psychological impact on his day-to-day life.

Chowdhury, 44, of Cumbria Walk, Newcastle, who has no previous convictions, pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He was jailed for 14 months and will be banned from driving for three years upon his release and will have to sit an extended driving test if he wants to get back on the road.

Passing sentence, Judge Tim Gittins said: "As the CCTV shows, you reversed back so that you were ahead of him then drove at speed with wheels spinning, mounting the pavement and striking him. He can be seen to be taking a heavy blow - not, as you suggested, a clip with your wing mirror, and he was knocked to the ground unconscious.

"The fact is, you could have killed him. You demonstrated you are not fit to drive - your reaction to the altercation was wholly disproportionate in using your vehicle to threaten him and to injure him.

"It was a deliberate and highly dangerous manoeuvre that could have caused life-changing injuries. Fortunately the physical injuries, although serious, were not as grave as they could have been."

He added: "This is too serious to merit anything other than an immediate custodial sentence. Those who drive dangerously deliberately, particularly those who cause serious injury in the process like you did here, need to appreciate only immediate sentences of imprisonment will follow."

The court was provided with character references speaking highly of Chowdhury and Christopher Knox, defending, said: "This really is inexplicable. He is respectable and living with his wife who has reputable employment and is expecting their third child." The court heard he is remorseful for his "moment of madness".

After the case, PC Steve Scorer of Northumbria Police’s Motor Patrols team, said: “This was a shocking case which saw a licensed taxi driver deliberately collide with an innocent pedestrian walking on the footpath. Not only did Chowdhury drive in a dangerous manner, but following the collision, he fled the scene leaving the pedestrian seriously injured.

“It is only sheer luck that the victim did not suffer life-threatening injuries – and I am pleased to see that Chowdhury is now behind bars for his actions. This should serve as a timely reminder to any road user who drives in a dangerous or careless manner in our communities.

“As a force, please know that we will do everything to keep our roads safe for all and put those found to be driving dangerously and flouting the law before the courts.”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it reveals how the driver drove into the passenger, but nothing else. No direct evidence of what happened inside the car, etc

based on this I would say most likely a pirate hire chancing his arm !

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

To be honest it really didn't matter to the court exactly what happened inside, only to the likes of us.

I would hazard a guess he was trying it on with non-local punters, and they really didn't like it. Maybe it was a radio/Uber job and they said they would report the thieving ****.

The driver acted like a psycho when he drove at the punter, and he is exactly sleeping where he should be now and is out of the trade for good.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex, I'm not sure precisely how it all works, but surely the driver's version of events is relevant in terms of provocation etc? Of course, no one can be in any doubt about the action itself, but if I was a sentencing judge then I'd like to know the background to it all and take a, er, holistic approach in terms of blame.

There's *zero* in the articles about the driver's version of what happened in the car. Just that he lied about driving at the punter. I just find it hard to give credence to the punter's claim that all that happened was that the driver wanted £50 for what looks like a run of less than two miles (and a detour to a cash point), and when he was only paid £20 the driver reversed, mounted the pavement and ran him over

(It was the Kenilworth Hotel in Jesmond. The pick-up point isn't stated, but I took the distance from the 'diamond strip' area in Newcastle, which looks like a likely point for the journey's start. Anyway, we're told the basic fare was £10, therefore it was never very far...)

And it's almost certainly a Newcastle HC. They are all-black, many are saloons, with an oval white front door sticker and mainly white rear plate. The CCTV video of the video used to convict the driver is in another Chronicle article and, while it's predictably a bit blurred, the car in the video is consistent with Newcastle HC colour and markings.

Of course, we don't know all the evidence heard in court, but as I keep saying, very often these articles portray stuff in binary, un-nuanced, good v evil terms, and like to show victims in the best possible light and the perps in the worst light possible, with nothing inbetween.

So, for example, it all happened after a 'fun' 'evening' out. In fact, one surprising fact is that it took place in broad daylight. And, the version of the video on the Daily Mail's website suggests it all happened at almost 5am

Which kind of portrays things in a different light (literally so). It all looks slightly different to the reader if rather than a 'evening' of 'fun', they were coming home from a stag night at 5am.

Anyway, could go on about more of that kind of stuff in the articles, but little point in that, and we'll probably never know the truth.

And, of course, maybe the driver didn't dispute the events portrayed by the victim and his friends at all.

The two articles with the video are here. They're mostly the same, but the video on the Chronicle's website shows things a bit better (although they're not good videos in terms of the motions), but the Mail's version shows the time stamp. (It was in May, hence the daylight at almost 5am).

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no ... i-28338697

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ttack.html

And, of course, the 250+ comments on the Chronicle's website makes the press reports seem balanced

Full of stuff about rip-off drivers, cars shared 24/7 with relatives, Uber (well, duh), none of the drivers are white, wouldn't get into a Newcastle 'taxi', deport him, ripping-off the taxman, blah, blah.

The latter point is related to the card payment angle. Which, of course, points to an obvious failure of the authorities in terms of regulation. Cards are a self-evident source of conflict, and it should have all been sorted out nationally years ago. If card readers had been compulsory across the UK, probability is that the incident would never have happened.

Anyway, here's one of the more astute comments, and even this doesn't quite portray how I'd outline it all, even if the facts of what happened in the vehicle are undisputed:


And, I mean, we're told that the driver locked the punter in the car - not sure what kind of car it is (Audi?) but can punters be locked into a saloon like that? Don't think that's been possible in any car I've had, unless it's the rear doors and the child locks are engaged, which would entail the driver getting out of the car to open the doors every time a punter wanted out, which seems an unlikely scenario...

Of course, but no matter what provocation is alleged, you can't use that when the victim was walking away. As far as the court is concerned any provocation prior to the dangerous driving matter has little, if any, effect on the sentence.

It's a bit similar to self-defense defence. You can use that if you are in fear, but you can't use that defence if the person you have attacked was walking away at the time.

_________________
IDFIMH

The defense would put forward any background that could help the defendant. So the judge would be fully aware.

Maybe there just wasn't any in this instance.

_________________
IDFIMH

I agree, but sometimes it is a case of good v evil, and this may well be one of those times.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex, I get your point, but I wasn't meaning provocation in terms of a defense, but just as regards seeing the incident in the round. Could go on and on about this kind of thing, but problem as I see it about stuff like this is that the system only acts when it's too late. For example, why do some on here never work nights, yet perhaps this guy has been doing it for years, and finally snapped, perhaps over not very much. I mean, working nights in somewhere like Newcastle? Even the thought of it gives me the heebie jeebies.

The Durham incident is perhaps along the same lines, although presumably there's no blame attached to the driver who hit the drunk. But headbangers like that are often just left to get on with it, and are literally an accident waiting to happen.

As for the good v evil thing per se, unless I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I'll never believe that he deliberately ran the guy over just because he only got £20 for a two mile run

(And, by the same token, I suspect the good v evil thing is more related to the reporting rather than the evidence as a whole heard in court.)

If the punters had used racist language then the defense would have been on that from the off, and that would have made the press.

I get your point on the fella snapping, in fact I would hope he did snap and this wasn't his normal behaviour, and maybe having worked nights for years it was taking its toll, but we all have to be responsible for our actions, and this fella is in prison because of his.

_________________
IDFIMH