Well, whatever that policy is it just has to be opening up the taxi market by derestricting.

£50 grand plate values.

Buying and selling of licences that the Act does not allow.

Fundamental denial of Human Rights, denyng workers access to the tools of their trade.

The public being denied the fullest possible access to a taxi, vulnerable females being encouraged into danger by council policy of restriction.,

All to protect a vested interest.

Do we have to wait until someone is killed?

If the council is using this exercise to ditch the IPL and maintain control by restriction, then the "war" begins anew.

One would hope that the new Chief Executive would recognise that the policy is wrong and from her perspective impossible for her Corporate Services to maintain legally.

Across the board, City of Edinburgh Council has serially failed. City Hall is in the deepest crisis beyond even living memory. The politicians have failed.

It's down to the executive to realise that fundamental rights are being breached, both within the trade and the public, and the status quo can't be legally justified.

The opportunity exists for the new Chief Executive to sweep the boards clean, weed out the chaff and restore common sense and public decency to the council.

Whatever, we eagerly anticipate the Sheriff's decision.

Taxi licence appeals – The Council’s case

Observed in Court the council’s case, as presented by its stalwart legal eagle, Douglas Armstrong QC (keep taking the money, son) appears to be as follows:-

Policy

The Council is claiming that it is entitled to determine its own Policy and to “regulate” its own process and procedure.

This is substantially not contentious. The political process provides for this and a Sheriff would have sympathy for just such a premise. After all, it is not the purpose of the Courts to usurp the political process.

However, it is surely incumbent upon any council policy to adhere to the 4 tests which are provided as appeal grounds in the CGSA 1982.


Shedule 1 – 18 – Appeals Sectiion 7

The sheriff may uphold an appeal under this paragraph only if he considers that the licensing authority, in arriving at their decision—

(a) erred in law;
(b) based their decision on any incorrect material fact;
(c) acted contrary to natural justice; or
(d) exercised their discretion in an unreasonable manner.

The case before Sheriff Noble is based on clear evidence that the council, having basically made it up as it went along, has breached each of these appeal grounds in pursuing its actions in this case.

Consultation

The Council is claiming to have consulted on the policy adopted and to have taken account of the responses it received.

So what? Having failed through a ludicrous unfair policy in the first place, what Sheriff is going to pay any heed to this?

Fairness

he council claims that if the policy and procedure which the Council adopts when considering applications is within Council policy and is applied fairly then there is no basis to overturn the decision.

But when the policy is fundamentally flawed and breaches the basic tests in Law as described above? I don’t think so.

Procedure

According to the council, the test is not whether the procedure is the fairest but whether it is inherently unjust (for example where there is an unfair distinction between individuals).

How can it be just to receive applications, then invite other applications based on an illegal list, then shuffle these to the front of the queue, thereby denyingapplicants the right to make application and for that application to be considered based on the conditions existing at the time of application.

What this would mean is that the council can receive an application and then deliberately create the conditions to refuse that licence appliation, which we know is what they have been doing when constructing survey of demand information to "justify" refusal. Is this how councils are supposed to operate? Apply for a licence and the council gets to rig th game?

Is Armstrong really trying to win this case or is this just straw grasping masking council incompetence?

Precedent

The Council adopted a Policy and procedure which has been used both north and south of the border in the past.

Which may have been got away with because the trade complied with it.

But now it is subject to real scrutiny and is clearly being shown to be manifestly unjust.

Order of Applications

The Council is claiming that the policy on the order of the applications and the fact that the appellants name was not on the list of interested parties was not the reason for refusal. It is accepted that the order of consideration is material when considering the question of significant unmet demand

Doesn’t this just have to be a naked lie? Had the applicant’s name been on the list, and he had applied within the 27, his name would have been shuffled to the front. End of.

Isn’t Armstrong giving the case away when he agrees that the order of consideration is material? Of course it is. And it breaches each of the appeal grounds in turn.

Reason for refusal

The application was refused because there was no significant unmet demand at the time the application was considered.

But only because the council shuffled applications to the point where alleged demand which existed when the application was made had already been “satisfied” - taken upo by those given peference by the council.

Failure to object

The appellant failed to object to the policy and applications from those on the IPL.

Can Armnstrong honestly be saying that Sheriff Noble won’t understand that any objection is rightly and properly lodged through the appeal process?

And in our case we certainly did object to the process. This is well documented. The council ignored it. And we weren't the only ones. As th council and Armstrong well knows.

In any case, the IPL, being a closed list, and according to the Dundee case, is discriminitory and illegal.

Does anyone now doubt whether, with this submission, this council is seriously trying to win this case?

Armstrong is no fool. He’s too good a QC.

What appears as incompetence and a weak case here just has to be deliberate.

Quality!!!

Jasbar
in laymans terms what does the councils case mean to the individuals who appealed.
Does it look favourable to the council or the individuals.
If the sherrif knows his stuff then QC Armstrongs case is blown out the water- Yes -No?

Below in Red is the quote from Travis Bickle surely not true??????


Cec council stood up n tore the The Blaggers argument to pieces at every turn in less than 3 hrs.

Yet the council for the Blaggers, who never even turned up to court, took 2 Days !!!

He'll be laughing all the way to the bank with his well earned fee's, methinks the initial £1k paid to Messers Johnston & colhoun for the fighting fund ain't gonna be close to covering the costs

Anyway we've now got to wait whilst the sheriff recovers from the drone only following policy,

The council's defence is that it was merely following policy, doing what it has always done consistent with that policy and it is entitled to do just that.

However, what the Shreiff is going to do is consider each point raised by the excellent appeal case in accordance with the Law.

We've been saying for years that the council is making it up as it goes along. Now we should find out.

However, should an establishment Sheriff get this wrong, and no appeal is made, then the next challenge waiting in the wings is Hiuman Rights.

Personally I would prefer the matter to be settled with HR, because victory in that arena would come with a retirement inducing pension dividend.





BTW I was joking with the Mark Antony reference to Brutus.

Travis is a snake, and a cr*pper at that. How can you respect anyone who spouts his tripe while anonymous.

Oh dear!

No comment on what Travis has said then ,you resigned to defaet then, must lobby the council to make you's cover the legal cost's too the council and taxi trade