Taxi Driver Online

Private hire driver clears his name in High Court

A Peterborough mini cab driver, fined by magistrates for plying for hire on the streets without a licence, has had his name cleared by two of the nation's most senior judges.

The High Court’s ruling was a major defeat for Peterborough City Council which had ploughed substantial sums into prosecuting cab driver Mohammed Kurshied.

Mr Justice Sweeney said flaws in Mr Kurshied’s trial before magistrates were “entirely the fault of the council” and it was right, indeed imperative” for the High Court to intervene.

Mr Kurshied had been accused of picking two undercover Special Constables up off the street outside Perfect Chicken, in Laxton Square, Peterborough, on April 15, 2007.

The mini cab driver insisted he had been legitimately called out after a pre-booking, but magistrates convicted him in November 2007 after the council called no less than six witnesses against him.

He was fined £100 for plying for hire without a hackney carriage licence, £200 for driving without appropriate insurance and £100 for failing to log details of a booking. He was also hit with a £15 victim surcharge and ordered to pay the city council £235 in legal costs.

Mr Kurshied did not have his licence suspended as a result of the conviction.

Before they found him guilty, the magistrates had refused Mr Kurshied’s application to adjourn the prosecution so that arrangements could be made for a 16-year-old witness – who he said could support his defence – to attend court to give evidence.

Overturning Mr Kurshied’s convictions, Mr Justice Sweeney said the need for an adjournment was “entirely the fault of the council” and there were “overwhelming” reasons why the prosecution should have been delayed.

The young witness’s evidence was “capable of going to the heart of the case” and the refusal of an adjournment had “compromised” Mr Kurshied’s ability to defend himself.

And the judge, sitting with Mr Openshaw concluded: “It seems to me there is merit in all the points raised on Mr Kurshied’s behalf.

“This is one of those rare cases where it is right, indeed imperative, that this court should intervene”.

Lawyers later confirmed that Peterborough City Council will not be seeking a retrial so yesterday’s ruling amounts to a complete exoneration for Mr Kurshied.

He was awarded his legal costs out of central funds.

After the hearing, solicitor to the council Helen Edwards said: “Some of the circumstances taken into account by the High Court related to procedural issues in the prosecution of the case. These matters arose back in 2007, and Peterborough City Council is satisfied that its current practices and procedures for court actions are sufficiently robust.

“The comments of the High Court will be considered carefully as part of the ongoing and routine reviews that are undertaken and any required improvements will be made.

“No order for costs was made against Peterborough City Council. Taking into account all of the circumstances in the case, no further action will be taken against Mr Kursheid.”

Mr Kursheid declined to comment on the hearing.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

If the council didn't oppose the adjournment then it was the magistrates that messed up. Otherwise both council and magistrates messed up.

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.

Was thinking that

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Are you suggesting simple minds think alike? Or is it pure coincidence?

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.

How long before they nail him now?

_________________
Grandad,

My money is on the council making a balls up, and I see no criticism of Mags in the judgement.

But whenever Mags make a mistake, it's always their clerks fault.

_________________
IDFIMH

I posted the case in licensing and legal.

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.

Looking at the judgement in the Licensing Section it's quite clear the council messed up over the witness statement.

A section 10 witness statement is a statement of fact and usually uncontentious.

It would appear Mr Kurshied wanted to question the lad, as is his right.

If the council didn't produce the statement to the court then it wouldn't have mattered. Unless Mr Kurshied wanted to produce it himself.

_________________
IDFIMH

The bottom line is that the appeal was against the Magistrates courts decision to refuse the application for adjournment and the question posed for the opinion of the High Court was whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the justices had been right to exercise their discretion to refuse the appellant's application to adjourn the hearing and to proceed to trial.

The high court found the magistrates had erred in their discretion and that is why the accused walked free and rightly so under the circumstances.

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.

Sussex has highlighted the fact that section 10 of the criminal justice act 1967 played a major part in this case which of course he is right. For interest I have highlighted section 10 below.

10 Proof by formal admission

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any fact of which oral evidence may be given in any criminal proceedings may be admitted for the purpose of those proceedings by or on behalf of the prosecutor or defendant, and the admission by any party of any such fact under this section shall as against that party be conclusive evidence in those proceedings of the fact admitted.

(2) An admission under this section—

(a) may be made before or at the proceedings;

(b) if made otherwise than in court, shall be in writing;

(c) if made in writing by an individual, shall purport to be signed by the person making it and, if so made by a body corporate, shall purport to be signed by a director or manager, or the secretary or clerk, or some other similar officer of the body corporate;

(d) if made on behalf of a defendant who is an individual, shall be made by his counsel or solicitor;

(e) if made at any stage before the trial by a defendant who is an individual, must be approved by his counsel or solicitor (whether at the time it was made or subsequently) before or at the proceedings in question.

(3) An admission under this section for the purpose of proceedings relating to any matter shall be treated as an admission for the purpose of any subsequent criminal proceedings relating to that matter (including any appeal or retrial).

(4) An admission under this section may with the leave of the court be withdrawn in the proceedings for the purpose of which it is made or any subsequent criminal proceedings relating to the same matter.
____________________

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

I am surprised that Peterborough city council who do have a proven track record of prosecuting PH drivers for illegal plying for hire have come a cropper like this. It doesn't bode well for the trade either because illegal plying for hire, touting and other illegal practises are commonplace in the peterborough and surrounding areas and this judgement might open the floodgates even wider

It was an error by the legal team, not by the licensing officers, and I guess it wont be repeated.

Also the court should have allowed an adjournment, but the pressure was on the court with that amount of witnesses all turning up.

But 'in the interests of justice', the appeal court got it right.

_________________
IDFIMH