Taxi Driver Online

You have to admire Liverpool Taxi proprietor "Mr William Atwell Kelly" for his "dogged determination" in pursuing what he sees as personal miscarriages of justice.

Mr Kelly in the past has had a habit of sitting up and biting both the legal system and councils in the proverbial backside when they least expect it. However, just when I thought the dust was settling on a notable adversarial legal career directed at certain Merseyside local licensing authorities, up he pops with yet another timely reminder that he is still very much alive and kicking and determined as ever to fight for his own personal injustice.

No matter what anyone might think of Mr Kelly he certainly has the courage of his own convictions to right a perceived wrong.
__________________

Daily Post (Liverpool)

February 5, 2008, Tuesday

Name cleared after three-year legal fight

A LIVERPOOL taxi firm boss who has fought for more than three years to clear his name after his Alsatian was accused of biting a visitor yesterday received a public apology from a top judge.

It was as long ago as May 2005 that William Atwell Kelly's dog, Max, was said to have "taken off", run at and bitten the man at the premises of Kelly's Taxis, in Lockerby Road, Kensington.

Mr Kelly was convicted by magistrates of failing to keep control of a "guard dog". He was fined pounds 100 and an appeal to Crown Court was dismissed in May 06.

However, two of the nation's most senior judges, sitting at London's High Court, yesterday allowed Mr Kelly's appeal and overturned his conviction. They ruled there was not a shred of evidence Mr Kelly was using his pet as a "guard dog" at the time of the incident.

After exonerating Mr Kelly the judge, sitting with Lord Justice Moses, ordered his legal costs bills to be paid out of central funds.

Speaking of Mr Kelly's campaign to clear his name, his counsel, Mr Richard Colbey, told the judges: "He feels terribly strongly about it".

On the evidence they heard, the judge said the Magistrates had been "wrong to conclude" Max was being used as a guard dog at the time.

Lord Justice Jacob concluded: "It was not open to the court to reject Mr Kelly's account and there could be no conviction. I allow the appeal".
_______________________

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

You have to admire him. Most people would have just paid the £100 fine and let it drop. He must have risked losing many thousands if he lost.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

I don't think he cares, and I believe he loves a ruck or two in the courts.

Don't think many of the Wirral lads think much of him though.

_________________
IDFIMH

I often wondered why you used the name Kelly all that time ago JD, bloody funny though, with hindsight anyway

He's a very nice man... and likes a whisky or two

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I thought at the time the name would cause a little conjecture but to be honest the nick wasn't related to Mr Kelly, even though I assumed most people would think it was. I once explained the origin and reasoning of the nick, so the answer is out there somewhere.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I think Mr Kelly had done his homework on this offence and had come to the conclusion that his dog was "not a guard dog" but a "pet". He obviously thought the high court might see it the same way and they did. Whether or not in "law a pet can double as a guard dog" is another matter but in this case the courts deemed Kelly was right and the crown court judge along with the magistrates were wrong.

The section on which Mr Kelly was probably convicted is as follows.

Control of guard dogs.

A person must not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a handler capable of controlling it is present on the premises and the dog is under his control at all times while it is being so used, except while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.

The handler of a guard dog must keep it under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except while another handler has control of it or while it is secured as described above. The use of a guard dog at any premises is unlawful unless a notice that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.

1 Ie a dog which is being used to protect (1) premises, (2) property kept on the premises, or (3) a person guarding such premises or property: Guard Dogs Act 1975 s 7.

2 Ie land other than agricultural land and land within the curtilage of a dwelling house, and buildings, including parts of buildings, other than dwelling houses: ibid s 7. 'Agricultural land' has the same meaning as in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 (see para 726 note 2 post): Guard Dogs Act 1975 s 7.
_______________________

The Penalty.

Offences, penalties and civil liability.

A person who contravenes the provisions of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 relating to the control of guard dogs or restricting their keeping without a licence is guilty of an offence.

Contravention of the Act or of regulations made under it or of the terms or conditions of a licence does not give rise to civil liability, nor does it derogate from it.

These provisions are in force except in so far as they relate to the licensing scheme.
______________________

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.