Taxi Driver Online

Wondered why it was at least 24 hours since I'd come across a new P&J article about you-know-what

A fair bit of rehash here, but some interesting nuggets, and some stuff about committee procedures and minutes that isn't often aired.

And a predictable smattering of BS as well


7 questions Highland Council has now answered about the David Brown taxi licence row – and what happens next

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... d-council/

Highland Council have responded to questions over the row.

Highland Council has responded to a detailed series of questions about its handling of convicted rapist David Brown’s taxi operator’s licence.

The responses confirm several key facts about the licensing saga, but they also leave some of the biggest questions unanswered.


1. Why was Brown banned from driving taxis but allowed to keep operating a taxi business?

This remains the question at the heart of the controversy.

The council confirmed that on January 9 2024 councillors agreed Brown was “not a fit and proper person” to hold a taxi driver’s licence and suspended it.

However, they refused to suspend his taxi operator’s licence.

Rather than explaining why the two decisions differed, the council simply referred to the committee minutes.


2. Who voted to keep Brown’s operator’s licence?

The council has now confirmed exactly how the vote unfolded.

It says Councillor Drew Millar proposed refusing to suspend Brown’s operator’s licence, with Councillor Sean Kennedy seconding the amendment.



John Bruce, John Grafton and Duncan Macpherson also backed the proposal.

The amendment was defeated by six votes to five, meaning Brown’s taxi driver’s licence was suspended.

The council has also confirmed Brown’s operator’s licence remained in place.


3. How long did Brown keep his operator’s licence?

Highland Council says there were no further review requests relating to Brown’s operator’s licence between January 2024 and June 23 2026.

That means it remained in force for more than two years, while he was facing serious allegations about raping a passenger, before the committee reconsidered it following his conviction.

The authority said the June hearing was a review of two current taxi operator’s licences held by Brown.


4. What did the council do after claims Brown was still operating taxis?

Questions were put to Highland Council about allegations that Brown continued operating taxis after his driver’s licence had been suspended, including claims involving Inverness Airport and whether photographs and videos had been submitted to the authority.

The council did not directly answer whether it had investigated those allegations, whether it had received the alleged images or footage, or whether it accepted they showed Brown.

Instead, it said an email from a member of the public was received on August 20 2025 and passed to Police Scotland the same day.

https://content.jwplatform.com/previews/GiCyS0ye

The authority added: “Unlicensed activity is a criminal offence and a matter for Police Scotland to investigate.”

The response leaves unanswered whether any further evidence was received by the council, whether any enforcement action was considered, or whether Police Scotland ever reported back on the allegations.


5. Why did Brown continue to hold the operator’s licence in his own name?

One question raised during the controversy was why David Brown continued to hold the taxi operator’s licence when his wife was understood to be running the business.

Highland Council confirmed the licence was applied for and issued in Brown’s name, adding that it is legal for a taxi operator to allow another licensed driver to operate the vehicle.

The council also said the licence could not simply have been transferred into someone else’s name, stating: “Operator licences cannot be transferred.”

The response clarifies one aspect of the licensing rules, but it is still likely to prompt questions over whether other options were available once Brown’s taxi driver’s licence had been suspended.


6. Why were the hearings held behind closed doors?

The council said discussions about Brown’s licences were held in private because they contained exempt information.

It stressed that whether a hearing is held in private depends not on the type of licence, but on whether information is legally exempt from disclosure.

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 40x564.jpg

The council cited Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 as the legal basis.

It also rejected suggestions councillors receive only limited information, saying members can consider “any form of evidence which has a bearing on the question which has to be decided”, subject to the rules of natural justice.

One of the key documents in the affair is Report No HLC/10/24, a confidential report prepared by Highland Council’s Principal Solicitor and circulated only to members of the licensing committee before Brown’s case was heard.

The authority added that the amount of information available in live criminal cases is ultimately a matter for Police Scotland.


7. Is there a transcript or recording of the licensing hearing?

One of the remaining questions is whether there is a verbatim record of the licensing committee meeting at which David Brown’s licences were discussed.

While Highland Council publishes the minutes of the licensing meetings, they provide only a summary of proceedings and the outcome of the votes.

The council has said there is no full transcript or video or audio recording of the hearing.

A spokesperson said: “”There is no transcript – committee meetings are not transcribed.

“However, Police Scotland has asked for a Statement of Reasons.

“The draft Statement of Reasons was circulated to the members of the committee before it was issued to Police Scotland.”

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 40x564.jpg

If a recording or transcript did exist, it could reveal precisely what legal advice councillors received, what submissions were made by Police Scotland and Brown’s representatives, and what arguments persuaded councillors to reach different decisions on his taxi driver’s licence and his operator’s licence.

In Scottish local government, committee meetings are not routinely transcribed word for word.

Minutes are normally the official record. However, some councils do make audio recordings for administrative purposes before the minutes are approved.

That is likely to become another key issue as the affair comes before a special meeting of Highland Council.


What happens next?

The council confirmed the row is now heading before a special meeting of Highland Council in August.

It said the licensing committee’s decision has been referred under a Standing Order 16 Notice of Referral, initiated by the chief officer for legal and corporate governance.

All Highland councillors will now reconsider the decision.

The authority also confirmed that, as of July 8, four members of the licensing committee had stepped down from their roles following the controversy.

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 40x564.jpg

Willie Mackay has resigned as a councillor, while John Grafton, Sean Kennedy and Duncan Macpherson have all resigned from the licensing committee.

It said Councillor Macpherson had resigned via Facebook, and it had not received official notification.

Asked whether those resignations were connected to the Brown case, the council replied: “Please contact the relevant councillors for their reasons.”

Maybe it's just me, but that's all a tad, er, disjointed.

Haven't they got the driver's and operator's licences the wrong way round in the final two paragraphs?


Not sure if Highland Council actually said that. But it's BS - it's like saying a plateholder can allow a driver to be the plateholder

Which is illegal

The third word from the end there should maybe read 'drive' rather than 'operate'?


On the other hand, that's quite an astute question - but, effectively, David Brown was operating the taxi from jail. Which is certainly theoretically possible, at least if the fit and proper dimension is ignored.


Hasn't that been pretty well established over the last few weeks?


Although there are ways round that, as several other Scottish councils can attest.

Huge can of worms, as I say on here periodically

Who knows, maybe all this will open this can of worms into the public domain

I'm not too keen on never-ending threads, but maybe not a good idea to start another one with this, so I've just put it in the latest thread.

And not much here, but will ensure that it'll all keep the pot boiling. But you don't need to be Nostradamus to predict what the result will be

(The rehash stuff is excluded below.)


Review of rapist taxi driver's operator licence could be held in private

https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/r ... in-private

A full council meeting will reconsider the decision, but councillors will decide whether to do so behind closed doors

A full council review of a decision to allow a convicted rapist to keep his taxi operator’s licence could be held in private.[...]

Highland Council paused the committee decision and announced it would be reconsidered at a full council meeting on August 4.

Members of the public, including campaigners who gathered in Inverness at the weekend to protest against the decision, have called for next month’s decision to be heard in public.

Protest organiser, Claire MacKay, told STV News: “I don’t think that meeting should happen in private and I think all licenses granted by this committee, specifically for taxi drivers, should be investigated.”

However, it has emerged that the review of the licensing committee decision has been recommended to be heard in private.

Highland Council said the decision to reconsider the original outcome of the meeting was an “extremely unusual step”, but that the special meeting would follow the same rules as the licensing committee.

As a result, it will begin in public before members are asked to agree to the item in private.

The local authority said this step is only taken “if there is a legal reason to do so, including, for example, where confidential or exempt information is included”.

A spokesperson for Highland Council said: “We recognise and understand the high level of public interest in this and are committed to being as transparent as possible about the process and outcome of the meeting, while complying with legislation.”

How can anyone on that council now have an open mind on this licensing matter?

If ever there was a kangaroo court, this is it.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, Sussex. And I'm not a lawyer, but it's all creating an open goal in terms of an appeal when the council finally decides?

Or maybe it'll just hold things up a bit, because presumably it would just be decided by some other method that his vehicle licence goes? You'd also think that it's maybe all a bit academic by now anyway. On the other hand, no sign of him actually surrendering the plate yet.

Anyway, this is the P&J's take on the secrecy thing. Which maybe contains a bit of additional information compared to the piece above. But I'm well past comparing every word of these articles for slight differences in detail and nuance


Rapist’s taxi licence could be reviewed in private AGAIN by Highland Council

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... w-private/

Councillors have been recommended to take the review of David Brown's taxi operator's licence behind closed doors for a second time.

A second review of a convicted rapist’s taxi licence has been recommended to be held behind closed doors by Highland Council again.

Councillors voted in secret in June to let David Brown retain his operator’s licence despite him being jailed for more than six years and being placed on the sex offender’s register for life for raping a teen passenger.

The decision caused outrage after The Press and Journal revealed that while four women voted to have his licence suspended, the six men on the licensing committee decided to take no action.

Highland Council’s own legal team immediately filed paperwork to have the decision reviewed.

All of the council’s remaining 73 councillors, after one resigned due to the fallout from the original vote, will meet on August 4 to have their say.

Now the Inverness Courier has reported it has been recommended the talks will once again be held behind closed doors.

Why is Highland Council taxi vote behind closed doors?

Highland Council says the special full council meeting will follow the standard rules of the licensing committee.

It means the meeting will begin in public, where councillors will decide whether to hold the talks in private with a recommendation that they do.

A spokesperson said: “The special meeting will follow the same rules as the licensing committee.

“It will begin in public and members will be asked to agree the item is taken in private.

“Items are only heard in private if there is a legal reason to do so, for example, where confidential or exempt information is included.

“We recognise and understand the high level of public interest in this and are committed to being as transparent as possible about the process and outcome of the meeting, while complying with legislation.”

Could controversial taxi vote still be held in public?

It remains only a recommendation for Brown’s taxi licence to be reviewed in private.

Councillors will still need to decide on the day whether they want to take the talks behind closed doors or hold them in public.

Votes had to be held in neighbouring Moray Council as some members pushed for talks about the demise of the St Giles Centre in Elgin to be held in public.

However, on both those occasions a majority of councillors wanted the decisions to be taken in secret.

There's a previous thread on the SafeKab app mentioned here.

And I don't know too much about the Scottish PVG checks that he's suggesting, but I think it's maybe a bit like an advanced DBS rather than a standard DBS, in terms of the English system, roughly speaking.


Inverness Taxis boss: ‘Nobody should feel unsafe getting in a taxi, we need CCTV in every vehicle and extra driver checks to improve safety’

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... vg-checks/

Gavin Johnston has revealed the impact cases such as David Brown's have on local businesses such as his own.

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 40x564.jpg

The boss of a popular Inverness taxi business has called for mandatory CCTV in cabs with hopes firms do “everything they can” to keep passengers safe.

It comes following a decision by Highland Council’s licensing committee to allow convicted rapist David Brown to keep his operator’s licence.

Gavin Johnston said Inverness Taxis transports over a million passengers a year.

He revealed the damage an incident like this can cause on the industry, saying people should think of a taxi as a “safe way home”.

Gavin wants firms up and down the country to install CCTV in their cabs, something which Inverness Taxis already has done.

He has also called on the Scottish government to introduce PVG checks for drivers.

‘What happened recently is rare, but it doesn’t make it any less awful’

Gavin said he was deeply concerned after reading about Brown’s actions, and said his thoughts are with the victim.

He said: “What happened to a female passenger is shocking,

“It’s rare it happens in Inverness, which is great, but it doesn’t make it any less awful when it does. When it does happen, it’s very damaging for the industries as a whole.

“No one should ever feel unsafe when using licensed transport. People should think about getting a taxi as a safe way to get home.

“It is still a very safe way to get home, but when characters like that slip into the industry, it’s best if there are things in place to protect our passengers.”

Campaign for CCTV in all cabs

Gavin wants CCTV in every cab across the UK, as he feels it would protect customers, but also drivers.

He said: “It would stop anything dead in the future, if you’ve got CCTV there’s less chance people will misbehave.

So I think it’s a winner for the industry, for our drivers and of course our passengers.

“We already have them fitted in all of the company cars, and the footage goes onto an encrypted hard drive.

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 40x564.jpg

“Nobody can get into it other than management, so it’s very safe, and we’ve passed information onto the police in some cases. So it can help.”

Along with the CCTV, Gavin would also like less people like David Brown to be able to slip through the cracks.

He added: “People get granted a taxi licence or a private hire licence through police checks.

“But a PVG would provide more information. You need one if you work with vulnerable groups, it’s an extra barrier and an extra check.

“It would be another positive move which tightens up the net.”

Inverness taxi firms work together on campaign

Capital Taxis and Inverness City Taxis are also involved in the push for CCTV cameras and PVG checks.

Gavin believes this further highlights the importance of the issue.

He said: “We want to see these changes, we’re the three main companies that run in Inverness, and we’re united on this.

“We have trust in what we’re doing, and we know we have the right people sitting behind the wheel, but we want our users to trust them too.

“Inverness Taxis move over a million people a year, we do a good job. These rare incidents highlight exactly why we have to have these things in place, so it doesn’t happen again.”

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 40x564.jpg

Inverness Taxis is also behind Safekab, and Gavin has put a lot of work into making journeys safer.

He added: “I’ve been doing this for 30 years, and I’ve had a lot of people phone me saying my daugher or wife is going out, can you make sure they get home safe.

“So it’s a real issue, we know it is. Safekab has a lot of safety features, and it gives reassurance to users.

“They know that everything is traced and recorded, we need that so there’s nothing to hide.”

So in terms of the standard industry parlance, that means that only some of the Inverness Taxis fleet have them fitted?

And I got the impression last time round that all his drivers are self-employed. But they're driving his cars, and they have a camera lens in their face all day with footage than only management can access?

This is an opinion piece written by the same journalist who wrote the P&J piece a couple of articles up about the forthcoming meeting taking place in secret.

Nothing particularly groundbreaking here. Except really to underline that it's all just going to be a charade, whichever way the vote goes. But we all know which way it will go


David Mackay: ‘Why trust won’t be restored if Highland Council takes taxi scandal decision behind closed doors again’

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... ay-opinion

Highland councillors will meet next month to debate convicted rapist David Brown's taxi licence for a second time, but this time it needs to be held in public.

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 40x564.jpg

What were they thinking?

It’s a question I’ve been asked several times about how Highland Council’s licensing committee let a rapist convicted of raping a taxi passenger in his own taxi retain his taxi operator’s licence.

On paper, it looks like an open and shut case.

If it was me in that room, I would have made my mind up as soon as I was told those facts.

I fully appreciate some decisions councillors have to make are difficult and require competing opinions to be balanced. This wasn’t one of them though, it’s not even close.

David Brown stands today as a man jailed for more than six years while placed on the sex offender’s register for life for attacking and then dumping a vulnerable 18-year-old passenger in freezing conditions.

What set of circumstances could exist to possibly let him remain involved with a taxi company?

For the last two weeks The Press and Journal has had reporters devoted to finding out exactly what happened in that closed-doors meeting.

It’s not an easy job, you’re relying on piecing together multiple individual recollections into as complete a picture as you can.

Most importantly, it’s based on trust. Trust that whoever you are speaking to is giving you an accurate account.

Highland Council is now getting a second chance to get this decision right.

This time, the public deserves to know exactly what is being discussed with no room for doubt.

‘Highland Council knows committee came to wrong decision’

I fully accept there are occasions when councils need to discuss certain matters in private.

As a news reporter, I hate it. There’s nothing more frustrating than being on the other side of a door where countless stories, leads and opinions are potentially being discussed and I can’t hear any of them.

I don’t like it, but I can understand there are specific occasions where it’s necessary.

What it can’t be used for though is a cloak to hide subjects that are legitimately in the public interest.

Brown’s taxi operator’s licence falls squarely in this box.

Highland Council’s own legal team acknowledges its own licensing committee, for whatever reason, got its initial decision wrong.

It’s why it has lodged paperwork to have it reviewed by full council next month.

This time there can be no ambiguity, no doubt, no unanswered questions.

Highland residents deserve to know exactly what is said in this meeting and, most importantly, how it came to that decision.

Credibility of Highland Council’s licensing decisions at stake

The initial decision over Brown’s licence has already caused significant damage to the reputation of Highland Council’s licensing committee.

Four members of it have resigned because of the fallout. One of those has quit the council completely.

It has also opened a pandora’s box of previous licensing decisions being analysed.

Indeed, our coverage in The Press and Journal has analysis of a domestic abuser being given a taxi licence and an attempt from the previous licensing committee chairman to grant a short-term let licence to a sex offender.

The hearing where Brown’s taxi licence will be reviewed for a second time will be subject to intense scrutiny from the public.

Protests have already been organised for outside.

What we have heard from councillors who made the previous decision is they made the best decision they could from the information they were given.

The truth is we don’t know all the information that was presented the meeting. We know some and we’ve asked for the rest – but have been told it’s confidential.

The Highland public will rightly demand to know exactly how the council comes to its decision next month.

Given the public interest in the first hearing, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to know how the remaining 73 councillors will deliver their verdict next month.

If it wasn’t clear already, the integrity and credibility of Highland Council’s licensing decisions are at stake.

More secrecy behind closed doors will only invite more speculation about how these applications are discussed.

Transparency and open doors are what’s needed to begin to answer some of the many questions that have been posed in the last two weeks and, importantly, rebuild trust.

David Mackay is the leader of the Highlands and Moray team at The Press and Journal.

So there's really no point in the next meeting at all, because there can only be one result


Well you should know what they were thinking, because it's been reported at length - so the wife could continue to earn a living. Maybe it wasn't rational, maybe it wasn't legal. But for balance he could at least outline the rationale for the decision, which has been reported umpteen times now.


...and that's what I mean - for easy points scoring he's trying to make it sound like there's nothing to it other than allowing a convicted rapist to keep his plate.


If he thinks they are bad, he should see the rest

Seriously, though, obviously most licensing stuff isn't about things as important as this. But if he thinks a handful of cases represents all that's wrong with trade licensing in Scotland, then, I mean...

Lawyers cannot say that without giving the reasons why.

They have to put before this kangaroo court the pros and cons of the application, not saying the previous committee said yes, and you should say no.

Now, no one wants to see the rapist keep his plate, but if the council requires all drivers and operators to adhere to licensing law/rules, then so should the council.

_________________
IDFIMH