Taxi Driver Online

I wonder if the high court ruling giving a suspected sex offender within the ranks of the met his job back after vetting of serving officers was ruled unlawful will have any effect on DBS within the taxi trade, where taxi drivers have lost their licences due to “intelligence” from the police, but have not ever been charged, let alone convicted of a serious offence?

_________________
Former taxi driver

somehow I doubt it isn't usually one rule for them and another for the rest of society ?

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

Did wonder about that, Jimbo, when I heard the reports yesterday, and meant to have a look into it.

But I somehow doubt it would be that relevant to the trade.

I think, basically, that it's all about a quasi-judicial process like licensing committees. Thus a different standard of proof to a criminal court, so to that extent the police officer in question yesterday could be deemed not fit and proper to hold a taxi licence, even though there's not strong enough proof to convict him in a criminal court.

But by the looks of it I think there were procedural deficiencies in the Met's disciplinary processes.

It's maybe a bit like, say, a taxi driver being revoked without having the chance to have any input into the process, or allowed to appear before officials or councillors to make his case - the right to defend himself, basically, which is obviously fundamental to due process and all that.

So I think the Met officer claimed his right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR had been breached.

And, I mean, stuff like that is open to a wide breadth of interpretation by the courts - for example, the stuff about the 'right to a family life' under ECHR meaning that criminals can't be deported because their kids prefer chicken nuggets in the UK to those served abroad, say

By the same token, it might be open to any aggrieved taxi licence holder, or whatever, to argue that a licensing committee process didn't meet the requirements of ECHR, or whatever. And there's generally all sorts of holes that could be picked in stuff like this (as some of us maybe highlight on here). But that maybe depends on securing the services of a lawyer, and a lawyer who knows about the nitty gritty of this kind of thing, which may not always be a viable option for people in the trade.

Similarly, remember when magistrates used to be able to serve as local councillors? I think that was stopped under ECHR because councillors are local politicians, effectively, and politicians can't preside over courts of law under the right to a fair trial.

Another thing I recall from maybe the 1990s is that because councillors are politicians then they can't provide a 'fair trial' on licensing committees under Article 6 ECHR. As I recall that, they got round that by saying that anyone can appeal to a higher court from a decision of a licensing committee, thus that afforded them a fair trial under Article 6.

I'm not sure precisely what yesterday's case was about, but I'd guess it's roughly about the kind of stuff above, roughly speaking.

_________________
IDFIMH

I am not sure it will have an effect as councils do not employ us, and we have a legal right to a proper hearing, be that at a committee or the Mags court.

Whilst I have a little sympathy with the Met, I also think everyone is entitled to have a hearing before a final decision is made, even iffy coppers.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well that's interesting, Sussex.

Can't really recall the details now, since it was back in the 1990s, I think, but what I was thinking of was the Justice of the Peace Courts up here, and as many will know that's the Scottish equivalent of the magistrates' courts. So maybe I just assumed the rules in England would be similar, or that I'd misremembered it all.

Anyway, quickly Googled it, and according to the Scot.gov website:


https://www.mygov.scot/apply-justice-peace

So obviously a slightly different approach between Scotland and England. And can't say I'm too impressed by the English equivalent - it's a bit like saying that Angela Rayner or David Lammy could also act as a High Court judges as long as they're backbench MPs

Don't want to go off track, but would that stop a shopkeeper from being a JP, or a bouncer?

Or a mum from being a JP in the Family court.

In short, everyone has biases but the issue is that the law is the law, and sentencing guidelines are there for a reason.

In short, part two, as long as everyone involved in the court process is open and transparent there really shouldn't be a problem.

Say for example a taxi driver was a JP and before him he had a taxi driver who had been accused of dangerous driving, or a passenger who had thumped a cabby, as long as the JP informs those involved that he is a taxi driver then it's up to the parties to decide if they want to continue.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think you're right up to a point, Sussex, but the example I cited was specifically about politicians or councillors acting as judges, magistrates, sheriffs or justices of the peace, or whatever.

It's all to do with the 'separation of powers' thing in constitutional theory, and how that's been incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act and ECHR.

So under separation of powers, no one should be a member of the executive (the government, basically), the legislature (parliament) and the judiciary.

The reason being that you can't make the laws as well as interpret and apply them

Maybe the classic example was the Lord Chancellor, who when we were leaving school was Speaker of the House of Lords (part of the legislature and also the highest civil court), sat in the Cabinet (ie part of the government/executive), and was also head of the judiciary in England and Wales

So that's roughly why the House of Lord was replaced by the Supreme Court in terms of the highest civil court in the land, and why the Lord Chief justice became head of the judiciary.

By the same token, I think that was roughly the same reason councillors in Scotland were banned from becoming JPs via the whole EHRC thing and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 - as politicians they couldn't really be fully independent members of the judiciary.

And in turn that's a bit like why I would abolish quasi-judicial licensing committees if it was up to me. Of course, in their purely quasi-judicial guise they're not supposed to be political, and should not show bias and the like. But we all know that's a bit of a pretence at best, utter nonsense at other times

And if you think about it in terms of the separation of powers, it's all a bit of a nonsense - councillors are making the rules for inspecting vehicles, for example, and if you fail an inspection you have to go in front of councillors, in some local authorities at least. So they're both making the rules and acting as judge and jury over people who break them

(An example is maybe the app/inspection thing in Pendle - no point going into the nitty gritty of it all, but it's reeking of party councillor politics and political machinations, but then drivers may end up having to explain themselves to councillors...)

There's a fairly short Parliamentary research paper on the separation of powers here, if anyone's interested in all the Lord Chancellor/Supreme Court reform etc.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... N06053.pdf

This is the latter part of the Guardian's article on the Met thing. It's not particularly clear, but I think it seems to underline that it's just a question of having the right procedures in place, which hasn't been the case. But the judge has basically said that as long as the government puts the right regulations in place, then everything will be OK

So in principle, there's nothing to stop officers being sacked for stuff that's they've not been convicted of in a criminal court, but the correct procedures need to be in place.

And, as this also makes clear, it should really have been sorted out years ago, and the Met were just winging it and hoping nobody would notice.

Doesn't remind me of stuff in the trade at all


Met vows to keep suspect officers away from public after court blocks their sacking

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... high-court

Commissioner says force in ‘hopeless position’ after being told to reinstate scores of officers who had failed its vetting

[...]In the ruling, Mrs Justice Lang said the Met had been breaching article 6 of the European convention on human rights that guarantees a fair hearing and did not have the power to dismiss officers.

“Dismissal is a matter which should be provided for in regulations made by the secretary of state. This results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic vetting clearance cannot be dismissed by the defendant,” Lang said.

“In my view, that anomaly could and should be resolved by regulations.

“The process deprives the officer of any meaningful opportunity to challenge a finding of gross incompetence. The panel merely confirms a decision that has already been made, by an internal vetting regime which is not article 6 compliant. Where basic vetting clearance has been withdrawn, the only outcome open to the panel is dismissal.”

Matt Cane, the general secretary of the Met Police Federation, said obvious flaws in the scheme had being ignored by the commissioner and his lawyers: “I remain curious as to why those in Scotland Yard thought they could operate outside the law when it comes to police officers.

“As far back as early 2023 I wrote to the Metropolitan police raising our concerns around the legality … I made it clear from the outset that where an individual is dismissed, unlawfully, this will not go unchallenged.”

A Home Office spokesperson said the government was “acting rapidly” to introduce new rules to help forces sack officers who could not hold vetting – an official system used to assess someone’s suitability to work for the police.

The use of withdrawal of vetting clearance as a way of dismissing officers from the Metropolitan Police was declared unlawful by the High Court today.

In Di Maria v Met Police and Others, serving officer Lino Di Maria challenged the Met’s decision to withdraw his vetting clearances, and then to refer him for gross incompetence on the grounds he could no longer perform his duties. The reasons for his withdrawal of vetting clearance included allegations of sexual misconduct which had been formally withdrawn on the basis that there was no case to answer, and other allegations and complaints which had not been proved.

A Commander Harman decided that, because Di Maria no longer had any vetting clearance, he was unable to perform the duties of his role as an officer and was suitable for referral to a panel under the Met's performance regulations, on the basis of gross incompetence.

The panel dismissed him, which the High Court found was ‘inevitable’ given his vetting had been withdrawn.

Mrs Justice Lang said this use of the regulations had ‘been adopted as a mechanism to overcome the absence of any lawful statutory procedure for a vetting dismissal’.

‘I do not consider that it is fit for purpose’, the judge said. ‘As the panel has no power to re-open the vetting decision, the process deprives the officer of any meaningful opportunity to challenge a finding of gross incompetence. The panel merely confirms a decision that has already been made, by an internal vetting regime.’

Mrs Justice Lang said this route was not compliant with the right to a fair trial, pointing out: ‘Where basic vetting clearance has been withdrawn, the only outcome open to the panel is dismissal.

‘If a finding of gross incompetence is made, before an outcome is determined, the panel must have regard to the officer’s personal record and any mitigation or references he may put forward, but this is meaningless if the only available outcome is dismissal. In my view, dismissal without notice for gross incompetence will be a serious stain on a police officer’s record when seeking alternative employment, in addition to the loss of vetting clearance. It ought not to be imposed without an effective and fair hearing.’

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/met-p ... 18.article

Think the nub of it is the officer (and the Met performance panel itself) have no option to examine the vetting withdrawal.

Whereas licensing decisions have statutory challenge/appeal options.

I think, roughly speaking, it would be like a driver being revoked by an LO, without have a proper chance to make a case in his defence.

And no right to a hearing by the licensing commitee, and no automatic right to appeal to the magistrate's courts enshrined in the legislation

So then to challenge it, he would have to embark on a much more onerous and cumbersome legal procedure, like that undertaken by the Met officer (with the help of his union the Met Police Federation).

So basically it's about not having the correct procedures in place, and thus the Met made up its own procedure, which was found to be deficient in terms of due process and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR

And, as the extract I posted in the early hours states, even the judge made it pretty clear that if the correct procedures had been in place then the officer could well have been legitimately sacked.

The initial press reports and the like made it seem as if it all meant that a Met officer could never be sacked for a sexual offence (say) unless he'd been convicted of it in the criminal courts.

Incorrect, at least in principle, and if the correct procedures are in place.

Of course, it might well be possible to pick holes in the average council's procedures for suspending or revoking a driver, say, as myriad decided case over the years make clear.

But I'd guess that the difference with the Met case is that there's simply no basic legislative/regulatory framework in place there, and the Met made its own procedure up, basically, and that was found wanting in terms of due process and natural justice, blah, blah.

In terms of the taxi trade, at the fundamental level there is a tried and tested basic institutional and procedural framework in place.

I was going to quote your whole post, but then I envisaged you doing a Mr Creosote having eaten the wafer-thin mint.

So I didn't, but would what you wrote apply to being on a trial jury?

_________________
IDFIMH

I was cited for jury service in December. There's quite the list of jobs which disqualify or make you ineligible up here -

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/0ip ... bility.pdf

Oddly enough, police can be on a jury in EngERland but not in Scotchland.

But only if they are ‘white and stupid’.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex, I've waffled on enough in this thread already , so a bit pointless saying much more, so won't bother going back up the thread to work out precisely what point you're asking about regarding jury trials etc.

But, in the round, it's horses for courses, kind of thing. So a judge/sheriff/magistrate/JP should be held to slightly different standard to jury members, because the latter are supposedly ordinary members of the public, end of.

And, to that extent, I think matters that disbar someone from becoming a member of the judiciary shouldn't be the same as that pertaining to a jury.

And, as the list posted by Mr XH558 demonstrates, there's a whole list of occupations etc which mean people can't (or needn't) serve on a Scottish jury, but obviously the rules will differ slightly between jurisdictions, even in the UK

Another angle, of course, is that jury members can be challenged if there's a perception or possibility of bias (although I don't know much about the exact rules), so it's not as if jury membership is absolute in terms of possible bias or prejudice. And, as many will know, there's a whole little industry associated with jury selection and challenge in the good old USA, for better or worse.

In this regard, an interesting development in Scotland in the past few years has been the proposal to abolish jury trials in rape and serious sexual assault cases. No point going into the details of it all, but basically the impetus behind it seems to be that juries normally get rape cases wrong, and to that extent the assumption is that juries are prejudiced, at least as regards that particular crime.

(Not sure precisely what's happening to this, but it seems to have at least stalled as leading law firms have refused to take part in a pilot scheme:

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scottish-l ... of-justice )

Which again reminds me of our quasi-judicial licensing committees, which I view as a kind of combined judge and jury, because normally there are quite a few councillor members, they aren't professional members of the judiciary, but yet they're not really members of the public like the juries.

But that's kind of why I don't think local politicians should be serving in a quasi-judicial fashion

Because they're politicians, the prejudice is built-in, sort of thing

Anyway, one particular example is the Alex Salmond trial; of course, he was acquitted of all charges.

(And I think the judge-only rape trials proposal in Scotland was linked to the Alex Salmond stuff...)

But I know of at least two former licensing councillors in Scotland, who on social media make it plain they think he was obviously guilty as sin, which underlines why I don't think they should be on licensing committees

(And an obvious example nearer the coalface recently was the councillors in Ayrshire who clearly thought they knew the truth better than the criminal process which had recently twice banned the applicant for drink driving offences...)

And at an even wider level, the whole Salmond thing can be linked to the whole perpetrator/victim dynamic as compared to the likes of the grooming gangs - Salmond the privileged white male vs the Pakistanti Muslim rape gangs on the perpetrator side, while the latter victims were working class, but the complainants in the Salmond case were high status and privileged senior civil servants, politicians and government advisers.

So the grooming gangs were covered up for decades, while Salmond was relentlessly pursued by dozens of police investigators etc because he'd touched one of the complainant's knees etc.

And, of course, this kind of bias and prejudice is everywhere these days - in the police station Samantha Kerr used the term 'white and privileged' against the police officer, thus assuming he was the one who was biased because of that, and it looks like the jury agreed on that point (although the particular phrase under scrutiny in the trial was 'white and stupid').

Anyway, I can't even remember now what the actual question was

But I don't have any particular view on it all anyway