Taxi Driver Online

Brighton taxi driver found guilty after young man killed in crash

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/2385952 ... led-crash/

A short-sighted taxi driver was not wearing his glasses and thought he had hit a sheep when he knocked down a young father-to-be and left him for dead.

Abul Hussain struck father-to-be Jack Brandon after dropping passengers off in Hassocks.

Mr Brandon was walking home after a friend’s wedding reception when he was struck by Hussain in New Road near Ditchling at 12.47am on July 3 last year.

CCTV showed that Hussain, 55, was not wearing his glasses while driving down the 60mph road and had already driven past Mr Brandon 90 seconds before.

Father-of-four Hussain thought he had hit a “sheep or deer” and drove back to his home in Stapley Road, Hove, without stopping at the scene.

He said he did not stop because it was “dangerous to stop there” on a national speed limit road.

Mr Brandon was found dead at the side of the road at 11am that day. He had been walking in the same direction as traffic westbound.

Hussain’s Peugeot Horizon was found in his driveway three days after the crash with damage to the passenger side headlight, windscreen and wing mirror.

Hussain was found guilty by a bench of lay magistrates at Brighton Magistrates’ Court during a seven hour trial today.

The court heard that Hussain, now of Downside in Shoreham, could only read a number plate 4.9 metres away without his glasses, a quarter of the 20 metres required by the DVLA.

Piers Restell, prosecuting, said: “The defendant has already passed Mr Brandon and 90 seconds later returns after dropping off a fare up the road.

“Most probably the collision would have occurred even if the defendant were to have had glasses.

“With better vision, the driver would have been able to identify Mr Brandon and not think it was a sheep or deer.

“It is clear that they will be able to see that Mr Brandon was a person.”

Detective constable Simon Rideout was brought in as an expert.

He said Hussain’s eyesight was “well below the required level” and Mr Brandon placed himself in a “position of vulnerability”.

DC Rideout said that from the dashcam footage, it is clear the driver “would be able to see Mr Brandon was a person”.

The court was shown a still image of the second before Mr Brandon was struck.

The court also heard that it was dark, the road was narrow and bordered by hedges and grass verges.

Richard Saynor, defending, said there was nothing to suggest that Hussain was driving dangerously at the time of the crash. His speed was between 40 to 45mph.

He said there was just over one second between Mr Brandon being visible and the accident occurring. The defence said it takes two seconds to emergency break.

Addressing the bench, Mr Saynor said: “You have to conclude his driving was careless. That the accident was unavoidable, it would have happened if he had glasses on or if someone had 20/20 vision.”

Mr Restell disagreed and argued that knowing he needed glasses to drive “falls below the standard to be a safe, competent driver”.

He added: “Is it right that a taxi driver goes around with an inability to see while driving?"

Hussain said he did not believe he had hit a pedestrian when he left the scene.

Asked why he was not wearing his glasses, Hussain said: “Since Covid I have experienced that when I wear glasses and a mask, steam comes out and fogs up the glasses. It became my habit. Sometimes I wear them, sometimes I did not wear.”

Hussain was charged with failing to stop, failing to report an accident and alternative charges of dangerous and careless driving.

Chairwoman of the bench Joanna Brown said: “We find as a fact that there is a presumption of adequate vision to drive. You have impaired vision and require glasses to drive. On the night in question you drove without your glasses.

“To drive without glasses falls far below the standard of a competent driver. We do not find to be credible your account in giving evidence today.

"You failed to stop and you failed to report an accident."

They referenced the expert evidence, dashcam footage and said the damage to the car was consistent with hitting a person.

Hussain has been given an interim ban from driving until his sentencing.

He will be sentenced on December 13 at Brighton Magistrates’ Court.

_________________
IDFIMH

Not the most straightforward read, and depends on arcane legal nitty gritty.

Bit at the end is straightforward enough, though


Shortsighted taxi driver wins appeal over dangerous driving conviction

https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/202 ... onviction/

A shortsighted taxi driver who hit a young man as he walked along a poorly lit country lane has won his appeal against a conviction for dangerous driving.

Father-to-be Jack Brandon died after Abul Hussain hit him as he walked home in the middle of the night along New Road in Ditchling.

Hussain, 55, did not stop or report the collision, and when police tracked him down following a media appeal a few days later, told officers he thought he had hit a deer or a sheep.

However, an accident report found that because of the road layout, the lack of lighting and the fact Mr Brandon was walking in the left hand lane, no driver would have been able to avoid hitting him.

He could therefore not be charged with causing death by dangerous driving, but was instead charged with dangerous driving, as well as failing to stop and failing to report an accident. He was found guilty of all three charges by Brighton magistrates after a trial in October last year.

Yesterday, a judge at Lewes Crown Court upheld his appeal against the dangerous driving conviction, as Hussain’s driving itself was not inherently dangerous.

However, he dismissed an appeal against the failing to stop and failing to report charges.

Judge Mark van der Zwart said: “I suspect that most people in learning that somebody with highly defective vision had made the deliberate decision to drive without corrective lenses would consider to do that would amount to dangerous driving in law.

“This is a case where there’s no evidence that the respondents intended to be set before the court of any manouevring of the vehicle – the driving of the car – which in itself would obviously be dangerous.

“This entire conviction revolves on whether the mere fact of getting into a car to drive it without corrected vision is sufficient to amount to dangerous driving.”

He said that there had been two cases at the Court of Appeal and the High Court where this issue had been considered, and both agreed it was not sufficient.

He said: “The mere state of the driver without any evidence of the driving of the vehicle itself in a way which could be considered dangerous is not sufficient in law. This appeal against conviction or dangerous driving is allowed.”

In ruling on the other part of the appeal, he took Hussain’s assertion he believed he had hit an animal at face value, but said that even then, he was required to stop and to report, and so had committed the other two offences.

During the trial, Hussain said that he had got into the habit of not wearing his glasses during covid, when wearing a mask meant his lenses would steam up.

Hussain, who lived in Stapley Road, in Hove, at the time of the crash but has since moved to Downside Road, in Shoreham, will now be sentenced by Brighton Magistrates’ Court on Friday 12 July, when he may also face an alternate charge of careless driving.

He was given an interim driving ban following last year’s conviction, which is still in force.

About a dozen of Mr Brandon’s family and friends have attended nearly every hearing in both magistrates and crown court.

There have been nine hearings at Brighton Magistrates’ Court and two at Lewes Crown Court. Most have not been able to proceed on the day because of a lack of interpreter for Hussain.

Yesterday’s hearing was delayed for two hours as an interpreter had not been booked and one booked at the last minute needed time to travel to court.

there is a myth amongst the asian commuinty that insisting you can't speak english will sway legal proceedings in your favour and here you see it in action. They got him eventually

The thing is though if you need glasses to drive safely what are you doing driving without because you are putting your own life in danger !

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

For a successful conviction of Dangerous Driving the CPS need to prove two things, one was the defendant driving, and yes you’ve guessed the second one, was the driving dangerous.

Clearly it was the fella driving, but the Crown Court decided that there was no evidence put before them (one Crown Court judge, and two magistrates) that his driving was dangerous. And I think they were spot on.

Yes he wasn’t wearing his specs, but that isn’t evidence of dangerous driving, it’s (my words not the courts) evidence of his utter stupidity. If there was evidence of dangerous driving then not wearing his specs would have been an aggravating factor when deciding on his sentence, it wasn’t evidence of dangerous driving.

In relation to needing the services of an interpreter, I get what many in the trade will say about that. Along the lines of what on earth was he is a trade like ours when he can’t speak English. However there is a gap a million miles wide between conversing to customers about destinations and fares and following a legal process that could lead to not only losing your livelihood, but also your liberty.

Many folks who have English as a first language struggle following the legal process in courts, therefore I don’t criticise folks using interpreters when English is their second language and they could end up jail.

_________________
IDFIMH

I get that kind of stuff about the interpreter, Sussex. On the other hand, there are probably people with English as their first language in court who have less of an understanding of the law and process than this chap.

But that points to shortcomings in the whole thing to start with and, for example, why many end up shafted by licensing processes, for example.

But no point going into detail about stuff like that here

all the legal arguments aside this is still an individual taking unneccessary risks which have sadly resulted in tragic consequences.

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

Not strictly true - and that was the straightforward part of the legals:

so Stuart if you needed glasses to be able to drive would you consider it safe to drive without them ? I certainly wouldn't drive without if I did need them

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

But that wasn't my point, Edders. You said the driver 'taking unnecessary risks' 'resulted in tragic consequences'.

But the accident investigator said the accident would have happened whether or not he'd been wearing his glasses, and the magistrates and judge agreed.

So the death wasn't the result of the driver not wearing his glasses.

Advise you wear your reading glasses when reading and posting on here - mine are only 99p from Home Bargains

let me rephrase this nobody can say for certain that not wearing the glasses wasn't a factor. My argument is why was he getting into the car and driving in full knowledge of the fact he needed his glasses to see properly.

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

Because the driver is an idiot.

One thing that is at the back of my mind is the view, albeit from an independent expert, that this accident couldn’t have been avoided, or words to that effect.

I’ve driven that road a thousand times, although not regularly at night for years, and I’m not sure I share those views.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well the accident investigator said it wasn't a factor, and both the courts agreed with him, so good luck with that

You may have a point of sorts, and Sussex seems to be in agreement, to a degree at least.

But I'm just stating what's reported with regard to the accident investigation, and the fact that both courts agree with the accident investigation's conclusions.

I suppose it's like one of those deer strikes which couldn't be avoided, and whether or not your eyesight was deficient wouldn't have made any difference

I don't need glasses to drive a car or private hire vehicle. I do however need glasses to drive a bus or lorry. Different standards. Maybe cab drivers should be grouped in with bus and lorry drivers when it comes to eyesight standards.

I suspect he did need glasses to be deemed as medically fit and proper, he was just too thick to comply.

_________________
IDFIMH

Wouldn't have made any difference to the case, since whatever the level of corrected vision required he wasn't wearing his glasses, therefore...

And many local authorities do specify the Group 2 (truck or bus) standards for HC and PH drivers. In fact, not sure of the numbers, but I've assumed for some time now that they were a majority, but presumably not your own council, Roy.

By the same token, pretty sure the driver in the article is B&H-badged, and pretty sure B&H requires Group 2 standards, thus the problem was simply the driver not wearing his corrective lenses (glasses or contacts).

And, in any case, the conclusion in the case is that he wouldn't have been able to stop whatever the circumstances with his vision at the time. Thus whatever the licensing standard, and whether or not he was wearing his corrective lenses, the death would have occurred. At least, that's what both courts concluded.