Taxi Driver Online

Met Police officer sacked after moonlighting as Uber driver

A Metropolitan Police officer who moonlighted as an Uber driver has been sacked after he applied for a licence with fraudulent documents.

PC Muhammed Darr was still on probation as a new officer when he was arrested in November 2019 on suspicion of fraud.

Bosses at Scotland Yard had no idea Darr had a second job as a private hire driver, a misconduct panel was told.

In the criminal investigation, Darr attempted to hide the fact he was a serving officer, calling himself “self-employed” and pretending he knew the police caution from TV shows.

A panel has now found Darr guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed him without notice.

The hearing was told how Darr had worked as an Uber driver since 2018 without declaring it as a “business interest” to the police force.

He fell under criminal suspicion after submitting a faked Transport for London private hire licence and bogus insurance documents to Uber when applying for a renewal of his operating licence.

In a police interview, Darr claimed he paid £100 for the documents to a man he met on Gumtree, and insisted he only found out they were fake when concerns were raised by Uber.

Darr was cleared of fraud after a criminal trial at Snaresbrook crown court, however, the police misconduct panel decided he knew the documents were bogus when he submitted them.

“He is a police officer and common sense would have told him that any apparent offer by a third party found on Gumtree to cut corners in the application process would be suspicious”, the panel ruled.

The misconduct hearing was told how Darr did not tell his Met bosses that he was under criminal investigation, and failed to declare his job as a police officer when he was first questioned.

“There was a deliberate decision by PC Darr to conceal the fact he was a police officer in that investigation”, said the panel, in its ruling.

“This is all too obvious from his first interview when asked to explain the caution back to the interviewing officer where he says he knows the caution from watching TV.

“He had also described his occupation to the police as self-employed. We find that this was a deliberate decision by PC Darr to mislead the investigating officer and attempt to hide the fact he was a serving police officer.”

Darr was found guilty of gross misconduct for submitting fraudulent documents to Uber and lying about his role as a police officer. He was found guilty of misconduct for hiding his second job with Uber from the Met.

“There is a clear policy requiring a police officer to notify his employer of any proposed business interest”, said the panel.

“In his failure to inform his employer of his self-employment as a taxi driver he has breached the professional standards of honesty and integrity and duties and responsibilities.”

Darr handed in his resignation on the first day of the misconduct hearing, but he was nonetheless dismissed without notice.

_________________
IDFIMH

An interesting case, and presumably the misconduct panel is quasi-judicial in nature. A quick glance at the official decision document shows talk about the burden and standard of proof - the latter being the balance of probabilities, so the same as a licensing committee

So he was found not guilty of a criminal fraud charge at Snaresbrook Crown Court, but of course the panel here operates under a different standard of proof, and to that extent he's lost his position as a police officer (and, presumably, no doubt his private hire badge has gone as well).

But the article above is very 'busy' in terms of detail, and some of the narrative doesn't really make sense

For example, why would he be applying for an operator's licence, and why would he be apply to Uber for it?


But that's quickly explained by the official case summary, which is quite brief:


Anyway, can't be bothered wading through all the fine detail, and the full decision document is 12 pages long

But the official Met summary and link to the full decision can be found here for anyone who feels the need:

https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metrop ... me-summary

But looks like it explains stuff like the standard of proof quite well, at least compared to a council's licensing committee minutes, say:

I'm surprised they sacked him instead of promoting him I thought falsifying documents and evidence was normal practice for scotland yard (allegedly)

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

You have to wonder about the vetting procedure used by the MET.

_________________
IDFIMH