Taxi Driver Online

Well this is a cracker

Doubt if this would be consistent with the Institute of Licensing's guidelines south of the border...

(If she was banned for 15 months in August 2022, then she'd have gotten her licence back in November 2023, which is where I got the '14 months out of ban' from, correct me if I'm wrong. Although the offence happened in 2020 )


Saltcoats woman granted taxi licence despite convictions

https://www.ardrossanherald.com/news/24 ... nvictions/

A SALTCOATS woman, who was convicted for drunk driving and another charge of being unfit to drive through drink or drugs, has been granted a taxi driver’s licence after councillors heard she had turned her life around.

Sarah Connolly appeared before the North Ayrshire's licensing committee on Wednesday, January 8, but faced an objection from Police Scotland.

Sergeant David Markin revealed that the applicant had previously been fined £500, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a year following a hearing at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court in December 2020.

This was as a result of an incident on Princes Street in Ardrossan during June of that year when it was found that she drove a motor vehicle while more than three-times over the legal alcohol limit.

Then in August 2022, Miss Connolly was fined £800 and given a further disqualification for 15 months after it was found she drove on the Isle of Arran, in August 2020, "while unfit to do so through drink or drugs".

Sgt Markin said: “We believe by reasons of these convictions she is not a fit and proper person to be granted a taxi driver’s licence.”

Asked about the offences, Miss Connolly said: “My first conviction was out of order. My aunt had passed away in Chicago and had brought me up for years and I could not go to the funeral due to Covid.

“I crashed the car but have not touched a drink since that time and have taken a course with the DVLA.

“I drank a couple of bottles of wine the night before the accident and have not touched alcohol since.

"The day of the accident I was going to buy another bottle of wine in Asda but that was when the accident happened.”

Speaking to the second offence, she added: “I had nothing to do with the second accident. I pleaded not guilty and I will say that till I pass away. I was on Arran with my pal during a Covid lay-off.

“My pal was driving and she put the car off the road and it was in a ditch ánd I was the passenger.

"My friend jumped out and I got into the driver’s seat as I could not get out of the passenger side as I was leaning against the bank.

“In the previous accident I had a crash where I had broken my chest bone and I was not able to jump down because the car was on two wheels in a ditch.

“A passer-by in another car rang the cops and when they came I was in the drivers’ seat where my pal had jumped down.

"I had taken a sedative and when the cops came the keys were in the ignition because I was in the driver’s seat they charged me.

“They did me for that as I had a conviction a couple of months before and they assumed I was guilty of that too.”

As councillors moved to decide whether to grant Miss Connolly a licence, Cameron Inglis proposed the committee decide in her favour.

He said: “I propose to grant the licence as I feel she has presented herself very well and she has shown change in her life.

"That’s what we have to look for as a committee sometimes, she has owned up to the charges in front of her.”

The motion was seconded by cllr Jean McClung , who said the applicant seemed an “honest and trustworthy person.”

Cllr Christina Larsen put forward an amendment, saying she supported the police and that Miss Connolly was not a fit or proper person owing to concerns about public safety and this was seconded by cllr Donald L Reid.

The motion to grant her licence was then passed by seven votes to three.

This is interesting from the perspective of the balance of probabilities thing, and all that. So if she was convicted and banned, then that's beyond reasonable doubt, supposedly. Yet on the balance of probabilities thing, effectively councillors saying here that the criminal conviction was wrong

In theory, it would work OK the other way round - police say there's not enough evidence to prosecute, but on the balance of probabilities a licensing committee could say there is enough evidence. But what councillors seem to have done in this case is the other way round, and seems wrong in principle.

On the other hand, it would be in principle be open to councillors to say that they accepted the criminal stuff, but their view was that she'd turned her life around. But, as regards Councillor McClung at least, she seems to be saying effectively that the applicant was wrongly convicted

Well there's a bit of a lie for a start - she was caught drunk driving in June 2020, but was only convicted in December of that year.

The 'unfit to drive' incident did indeed happen a couple of months after the drunk driving thing, but before she actually 'had a conviction'

(I'm assuming the following means she didn't 'have a conviction', strictly speaking', until December, while the drink driving incident had happened in June:)

She may have been offered the option to undertake the Drink/Drive course. If she was, and if she completed it on time, then she could have had her ban reduced by 25%.

_________________
IDFIMH

Down here that's a minimum ban of 36 months, and no offer of a course.

_________________
IDFIMH

Her insurance quote's likely to be astronomical - if there's a quote.