Remember the taxi driver who had the spat with his wife? The one who went to Court and was admonished because the Court recognised that it was really just a minor marital spat?
Of course you do, it's the story that the brainless one thinks was me
Anyway, the guy is cited by the council to appear before them to answer a complaint received by them from the Chief Constable in respect of his licence renewal.
The complaint was made by Cab Inspector Frank Smith acting on behalf of the Chief Constable.
The complaint did not outline what the nature of the complaint was, just that a complaint had been made.
The taxi driver was sufficiently concerned in the face of the threat that his livelihood could be taken from him he contacted the council to ask what the complaint was.
The council refused to tell him.
Taxi driver engages a lawyer to help defend him against the threat. The lawyer can't find out what the complaint is about either.
They both go into the council's licensing committee unaware as to the nature of the complaint.
It transpires that the complaint was supported by a spent conviction of 28 years previously which had not been entered onto the licence renewal form. A conviction long since dealt with under the Rehabilitation of Offenders.
During this meeting reference was made to the recent court case, with evidence led from the trial which was refuted in court and therefore legally incompetent.
In effect what the Cab Inspector was seeking to do was to try the case twice and, because he didn't like the original verdict and sentence, seek to try the case anew to achieve the dig out that he was seeking.
Cab Inspector Frank Smith, acting on behalf of the Chief Constable, engaged in riding roughshod over every aspect of this taxi driver's Human Rights. Double jeopardy rules.
1. He was not advised what his "crime" was to allow him to prepare a defence..
2. No explanation was sought from the taxi driver prior to the meeting.
2. He was being tried for a second time by this quasi judicial body for an offence already dealt with by the Courts.
The matter was dismissed without sanction.
But the question remains as to why this system is allowed to prevail? It breaches natural justice to treat people in this way. It encourages the Police and this Cab Inspector in particular to use the system to "dig" people he doesn't like out. Frank Smith fell below any level of decency by doing precisely that in this case.
Fortunately the council in this case took no action. In this sense it acted reasonably once the matter came before them.
But we all remember how they didn't act reasonably in the case of Rab Smith when the removed his licence, just prior to Christmas, on the basis of a charge made against Smith which was never prosecuted in Court.
But the Council is responsible for administering these matters in the way they do. It is a breach of rights not to advise individuals of the nature of the complaint being made against them.
It is a breach of their rights the those who make the complaint, ususally without corroboration, are not required to present themselves for scrutiny by the defender of his legal agent.
3Victims of this process are encourage to breach their right to silence, they are effectively conned or intimidated by the Police to "incriminate" themselves and corroborate their perceived "crime".
It is a breach of a defendant's rights for his case not to be considered in a consistent way with precedent based on previous council decisions.
There is no continuity in this process. The Council claims it considers each case "on its merits". It doesn't record in a register how it deals with cases, I've asked them and they can't provide the information. This allows councillors to act wholly unreasonable and we've got all the evidence we need that they do (The Daniel Wencker case where a thief was allowed to keep his restaurant licence is a case in point).
To protect councillors all of this process is conducted behind closed doors. It's done in secret so we may not see the excesses and abuse of power being employed here. We know what happens through the information that is leaked.
Now I can already sense the apathy that many in the trade will meet this matter with. After all it couldn't possible happen to you, could it? After all you're a good boy or girl and will never find yourself in this position, will you?
Perhaps so. I would reckon though you'd be foolish to think this. If the system is anything, it is dispassionate. It is designed to function without grace or favour, and if you're face for any reason doesn't fit, those who administer it will do so to inflict the maximum damage on you that they can.
Smirking Cllr Walker should remind us of the glee with which councillors will use the process to inflict damage.
So, if you're proved wrong and you do fall foul of this process then remember:-
Say NOTHING in respect of the matter. You have a right to remain silent. You are under NO obligation to tell the Police anything. And if they do caution you, the matter becomes sub-judice, you have the right to speak only through your attorney.
This taxi driver got no sanction, but the process delivered him a £634 legal bill. So Frank Smith was successful in ramming him.
That's the quality of the man. he can inflict such punitive financial damage and somehow still manage to sleep at night.
However the price is that this Cab Inspector is delivering a situation where yet another taxi driver wouldn't lift a finger to help the cops. This Cab Inspector and this Chief Constable is construction an oppressive police force that is losing the respect of the law abiding public.
Through them, and ineffectual control-freak politicians, we're now certainly in a Police State.
Login
Register
FAQ
