Taxi Driver Online

Unusual case, obviously, but quite a few interesting features.

Unusually long for an article of this type, though, and lots of the actual narrative from the court proceedings, but hey ho

His hands-off approach to the business has cost him dearly, though - office closed, and almost £6k in costs


'Drug dealing' at cab office leads to operator losing licence

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/ ... g-licence/


Image: Telegraph & Argus

THE operator of a cab company based in a Victorian rail station has been stripped of his licence after a court heard Class A drug dealing took place on the premises.

Magistrates decided that Akmal Sakander, operator of Central Private Hire based in Keighley Rail Station, was not a “fit and proper person” to run a private hire business during a hearing at Bradford Magistrates Court when it was heard heroin, cocaine and crack were allegedly being dealt “under his nose.”

Mr Sakander acknowledged drugs had been dealt at the private hire office, but claimed he had no knowledge of it happening.

But Bradford Council argued that his ignorance of criminality at his own business was evidence in itself that he was not fit to operate a cab firm.

The private hire office is based in a unit at Keighley Rail Station, and is just yards from Keighley College and the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway, one of the most popular tourist attractions in Yorkshire.

The office was raided by police last April during an investigation into the supply of drugs in Keighley.

The raid followed operations where undercover officers were allegedly dealt cocaine, heroin and crack cocaine by an individual in the company’s office.

An individual has since been charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.

Mr Sakander had been stripped of his licence by Bradford Council in May. The authority argued that the crimes had taken place on a premises that he was in charge of, and this was evidence he was not a fit and proper person to hold an operator licence.

Mr Sakander appealed this decision, and this appeal was heard on Thursday.

During the appeal, it was argued he had no idea drug dealing was taking place on the premises, and that he should be allowed to continue operating the business.

But Bradford Council argued that this inability to accept responsibility only proved he was not fit to run a private hire company.

The court heard that Mr Sakander had run the cab company for over 20 years, and also worked full time at nearby business Pennine Electrics, as well as operating a kitchen company.

There had been no issues with police in the lengthy period he ran Central Private Hire, magistrates were told.

Although Mr Sakander spent most of his time working in his other job, he could access the company’s CCTV on his phone, and told the court that if any issues arose he could quickly be back at the office.

When he was called for a meeting with licensing officers a few weeks after the raid, Mr Sakander said he was shocked by the line of questioning, which he compared to an “interrogation.”

Mr Ahmed, representing Mr Sakander, asked: “You had no knowledge of the activity that happened there prior to you being interviewed?”

He replied: “Correct.”

Sam Fowles, representing Bradford Council, said: “You say you didn’t know drugs were being sold on the premises? That it is unfair to punish you for the behaviour of others? You don’t think you’re responsible for (someone) selling drugs from the premises? You have no responsibility whatsoever?”

Mr Sakander replied: “Correct.”

Referring to the claim that Sakander was shocked that his interview with the Council led to him being questioned about drug dealing at the business, Mr Fowles said: “Your premises had been raided by police and a person arrested for dealing drugs on the premises. When you were invited to speak to the Council, was it beyond your ability to guess it would be about drug dealing on your premises?

“You are the person with ultimate control, ultimate responsibility for ensuring the premises is being operated lawfully.

“During that period there was heroin, cocaine and crack being dealt from the premises. That is a massive failure on your part isn’t it?”

Sakander responded: “Not if I didn’t know about it.”

Mr Fowles replied: “It was happening under your nose. You having no idea it is going on despite being responsible for the business is a failure on your part isn’t it?

“Do you only think it’s a failure on your part if you had known about it?”

Sakander said: “How am I supposed to know someone was doing that? How am I supposed to know there was drug dealing on my premises?”

Mr Fowles replied: “That is your evidence to this court?”

Mr Sakander replied: “Yes.”

Magistrates were shown images of alleged drug dealing captured on the company’s CCTV.

Referring to the appellant’s claims that he could monitor CCTV from the business while working his other job, Mr Fowles said: “You claim that if you saw someone dealing drugs in the premises you’d do something about it. We’ve seen some images of alleged drug dealing on your premises and you did nothing about it.”

Mr Sakander said he saw moving images on his phone, and so it was difficult to tell what was happening in them.

Detective Sergeant Neil Kelman of West Yorkshire Police gave evidence at the hearing. He said the CCTV appeared to show a cocaine deal taking place.

Mr Ahmed suggested that although a seasoned police officer may recognise a drug deal, his client may not. He said: “Is it fair to say a lay person might not be able to guess what this image showed?”

DS Kelman replied: “I’d expect that the exchange of a block of white substance for a large amount of cash would be recognised.”

Summing up, Mr Fowles said: “The Council revoked his licence because on his watch his premises were being used to deal in illegal drugs.

“The applicant has done nothing to prevent that state of affairs.

“As someone that allows their premises to be used for drug dealing and, in his own evidence, had no idea what was going on, is he really a suitable person to be trusted with a licence to operate a taxi firm?

“The refusal to accept responsibility is the basis for this applicant’s case.”

After a short deliberation Magistrates judged the Council made the right decision to strip Mr Sakander of his licence and dismissed the appeal.

Mrs Coward, chair of the bench said: “You agree you had no knowledge of what was happening on the premises. You are not a fit and proper person to operate a business like this.”

He was ordered to pay £5,890 costs.

When the Telegraph & Argus visited the private hire office on Thursday evening, the building was shut, with a sign on the door saying: “Office closed.”


Image: Telegraph & Argus

me thinks CCTV monitoring was probably at a similar level to that in police controlrooms monitoring street CCTV cameras; partial at best!

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

The operator now understands that ignorance is not a defence.

But I suspect he wasn't as ignorant as he is trying to make out.

_________________
IDFIMH

Drug Dealing Taxi Operation Shut Down

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/drug- ... shut-down/

Bradford Magistrates Court has refused an appeal against the revocation of a taxi operator’s licence after a member of staff was caught dealing drugs to undercover police officers.

In 2023 West Yorkshire Police conducted a multi-county operation to shut down gangs dealing and smuggling class A drugs. The operation utilised under-cover police officers, encompassed “county-lines” gang, and resulted in more than 50 arrests. To date there have been 27 convictions with prison sentences handed down totaling more than 60 years. Further prosecutions will continue throughout 2025.

As part of that operation, West Yorkshire Police raided A Taxis. The search unearthed CCTV footage showing the despatcher, on multiple occasions, appearing to sell cocaine from the office. A Taxis is operated by Mr Y, a relative of the despatcher in question. The police informed Bradford District Council (the licensing authority) and Mr Y’s operator’s licence was revoked on the basis that he was not a “fit and proper person” to hold the licence (per s62(1)(d) of the Local Government (Misc Provisions) Act 1976).

On appeal, Mr Y relied (in summary) on three key arguments:

1. He was not aware of his relative’s drug dealing. It was sufficient that he had not broken the law himself, he should not be punished for another’s law breaking.

2. He had recently been granted a renewed Private Hire Vehicle Licence, for which the Council had concluded he was a “fit and proper person”. He should, therefore, be considered “fit and proper” in respect of the operator’s licence; and

3. He had a long history of operating taxi companies without error and was considered an upstanding member of the community.

The court, however, preferred the Council’s submissions:

1. There had been unlawful activity – namely drug dealing – at the Premises. The test was the balance of probabilities, not “beyond reasonable doubt” (following McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council [1998] 3 All E.R. 889). The unchallenged evidence of a West Yorkshire Police Detective Sergeant was, therefore, sufficient to establish the fact.

2. The Appellant had operational control, and a legal responsibility for the Premises and, regardless of whether he was personally involved in criminality, he failed to ensure the premises were used lawfully.

3. The Appallant’s refusal to accept responsibility for that failure indicate he was not a “fit and proper person”.

4. The test for whether an individual is “fit and proper” is context dependent. The statutory language (sections 47, 48, and 55 of the Local Government (Miscelaneous Provisions) Act 1976) explicitly links the “fit and proper” test to the specific purpose of the licence (operating a taxi firm/driving a provate hire vehicle/driving a Hackney Carriage). The question for the court was not “is the appellant a fit and proper person” but “is the appellant fit and proper to hold an operators licence”?

The Court also agreed that the Appellant’s admission (under cross examination), that his evidence in court differed on several important points from the evidence he had given when interviewed by licensing officers, reduced the weight that could be placed on his evidence.

The case demonstrates two important lessons for practitioners:

1. An operators licence shouldn’t be considered in the same way as a driver’s licence. The operator has a suite of management responsibilities and a person who is “fit and proper” to be a driver may not be “fit and proper” to be an operator.
2. Relatedly, when determining whether a person is “fit and proper” to be an operator, the decision-maker must consider their capabilities as a supervisor. The operator has positive duties to ensure proper conduct by their staff and drivers. Its not enough for them just to keep out of trouble.

Sam Fowles acted for the successful local authority.

_________________
IDFIMH