Taxi Driver Online

You must have accepted the caution.

Now my advice to anyone out there in this trade of ours is never, I repeat never, accept a caution.

The police only offer them if they can't be arsed to fill in the umpteen court forms.

Accepting a caution is an admission of guilt.

_________________
IDFIMH

It doesn't matter whether you accept a caution or not. The charge made by the police to the council untderthe CGSA 1982 is that you are not a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence. And they can levy this charge against you for whatever reason they deem fit. It doesn't have to be after any caution. Such is the power they are wielding. Power which, by blind compliance, we are giving them.

Back to my original post.

You should write to the council, tell them about the request for information from the Police, that you will require this information before any hearing, then that you require the attendance of the Chief Constable in person at any subsequent hearing to explain his charge against you and particularly in terms of the information you have gleaned about the fitness of his serving officers.

That is your right in order to ensure that you get a fair hearing.

I'll warn you again. If you play by the council's rules, accepted meekly by the trade, they can and will burn you.

Remember their rationale is to ensure compliance from the trade. You're value in this exercise is less than snot.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Was the chap actually cautioned for the alleged offence or was he simply cautioned before the interview with the "I am cautioning you, you do not have to say anything etc." speech. They are not the same thing.

_________________
Grandad,

11.—
(1) A licensing authority may, whether upon a complaint made to them or not, suspend a licence
in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph.
(2) A licensing authority may order the suspension of a licence if in their opinion—
(a) the holder of the licence or, where the holder is not a natural person, any director of it
or partner in it or any other person responsible for its management, is not or is no longer a
fit and proper person to hold the licence;
(b) the activity to which the licence relates is being managed by or carried on for the benefit
of a person, other than the licence holder, who would have been refused the grant or renewal
of the licence under paragraph 5(3) above;
(c) the carrying on of the activity to which the licence relates has caused, is causing or is
likely to cause undue public nuisance or a threat to public order or public safety;
(d) a condition of the licence has been contravened.
(3) A licensing authority may make an order under sub-paragraph (2)(d) above in respect of a
contravention of a condition of a licence notwithstanding that there has been no conviction in that
respect

quote="Jasbar"]

If this guy takes your advice they will hang him out to dry. [/quote]


Dundee City Council's Taxi Driver's Licence conditions.

20. If during the currency of the licence the holder is convicted of any offence or has accepted a fixed penalty he shall provide details of the offence to the Licensing Authority.




(4) In considering whether to suspend a licence the licensing authority may—
(a) have regard to—
(i) any misconduct on the part of the holder of the licence, whether or not
constituting a breach of any provision of Part I or II of this Act or this Schedule,
which in the opinion of the authority has a bearing on his fitness to hold a licence;
(ii) where the licence relates to an activity consisting of or including the use of
premises or a vehicle or vessel, any misconduct on the part of person frequenting
or using the premises, vehicle or vessel occurring there or any misconduct in the
immediate vicinity of the premises, vehicle or vessel which is attributable to those
persons;
(b) make such reasonable inquiries as they think fit and, subject to sub-paragraph (5)
below, include the results of their inquiries in the matters to which they have regard in such
consideration.
(5) Where a licensing authority intend to include any of the results of their inquiries under
sub-paragraph (4)(b) above in the matters to which they have regard for the purposes of
sub-paragraph (4) above, they shall notify the holder of the licence of that intention.

Jim, my enquiry was simple, no conviction, no offence.

Interpretation is the key word here.

Fair enough, but the key here is the Human Rights Act 1998 which the CGSA 1982 is subordinate to.

It doesn't matter what powers the council thinks the CGSA gives them, if they breach your rights enshrined in the HRA they are acting illegally.

In any case, and we have asked, there is NO definition of what a fit and proper person is. Edinburgh's council couldn't tell us. And why should there be a different standard of fit and proper for cabbies when serving police oficers have convictions for serious assault etc.?

And the issue is quite simple. By being able to cite incidents completely non-associated with taxi trade matters, and particularly incidents which haven't been proved in a court of Law, councils are denying individuals the right to defend themselves, a clear breach of Human Rights.

As things stand the cops will charge everyone in an incident, it is not their job to judge whether you should be charged or not. And in our era of statistical accountability for officers, every individual charged is another notch on their belt to prove to their bosses that they are doing their job properly. They charge people with zeal because of this.

It is then up to the judicial process to determine fault and prosecute and punish accordingly.

Our friend above has not been found guilty of any offence. No conduct issues have been proved in his case. He is being punished while not having been proved at fault.

This means that, just because you have a taxi licence that you don't want to lose, if you are involved in a fracas you should take the beating so that you don't get charged. You should NOT defend yourself by using resonable force, as the law permits, in case the action you take is deemed by an investigating officer to have the potential for offence and therefore justify charging you. Remember its the fact that you are charged alone that the council is using to judge whether you are fit and proper.

The other aspect is that it is enshrined in Law that you can only be punished once for any offence. Yet the council is assuming the power to punish you for a second time. The first is through the judicial process, although here it is only the police themselves who are punishing our friend, the second is the stiffing the council chooses to hand out.

This is a system that Adolf and his henchmen would have been proud of. It doesn't fit with an ellegedly democratic system which is a signatory to the Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

In short, I take on board the sections of the Law you have quoted, but it is subordinate Law and the GSA 1982 has NEVER been interpreted for compliance with HRA 1998.

It should be done so as a matter of urgency. If our trade "representatives" were truly of any value to those working in the trade they would be actively lobbying the Scottish Parliament to do so.

I suspect they are happy about the blanket compliance which exists and don't want to rock the boat that gives them their status within the trade.

Does anyone doubt this?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

My best friend suffered the same fate after being assaulted by a violent beggar. He retaliated and returned the favour. This was his first offence at the age of 42, DDC immediately suspended his Driver's Badge and Plate until the trial, he was giving a £500.00 fine and then DCC took his badge for the period of one year ! Best about it they sent my mate to a social worker (who before the sherriff passed sentence) stood up with this report...."Your Honour, after meeting with Mr....... it is my assessment that he is not dependent on alcohol nor drugs, i can see a custodial sentence not being a problem in this case."(by the way the beggar got zilch after he was captured on CCTV up to 3 hours before the incident with my friend, accosting other menbers of the public with a bottle of cider in his hand) so yes ! Jim, i am in agreement with you 100% regarding the Law and the CGSA but, we are the one ! it's the many that need to be counted !

Yup the law is crazy. Minimum force for defence is the watchword. However when that becomes offensive the law protects the original instigator not the defender. It's like footie. Someone kicks you. You kick back. He gets a yellow card, a caution. You get sent off.

Without knowing all the details of your mate's case it is not possible to comment really. he size of the fine could suggest it was not a borderline case.

All I'd say is that the "justice" system follows a process. Without understanding the process you're stuffed. Lazy lawyers, who get paid no matter the result, often just go through the motions. Being aware of this can help you beat a rap. But you gotta take and keep control.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

The incident happened as follows....My mate left the pub 30 mins after me, he went to the nearest kebab shop on a street (which is a continuation of the High Street) this area is covered by CCTV and the whole incident was captured. My mate was approached by beggar demanding money, he refused and turned to walk, beggar kicks him from behind, mate kicks him back, beggar throws a wheelie bin at him, mate throws a cracking right hook and beggar goes down, never to get up.

The police after being alerted by CCTV operators then enter kebab shop and arrest my mate. Sherriff watched CCTV playback and says, "unprovoked and sustained attack" after hearing that i was close to being held in contempt !

To cap it all Chairman of the Licensing Committee Says, " Mr......... you should not have retaliated and you had the opportunity to walk in several directions"

As for the fine, Solicitor told mate that reason the sum was so high was that he was a first offender ! in other words hit them hard first time and they'll think again before re-offending.

Class eh ? Wot u make o that then ??

Right went down to tayside police and asked them to confirm I haven't been charged with and offence, and guess what, they couldn't tell there head far there arse, have to go see the officer throat took my statement!

After that I went to the city council and told them I would not recieve a fair hearing cause the letter they received had the wrong info on it, the sent my to the cab office, that was fun he prity much told me to [edited by admin] off it's nothing to do with him even tho he was the one that wrote that Peter to the dcc, he dated he received info from the officer that took my statment saying I was charged, WTF, so then went back to bell street police station and put in a formal complaint angaist that officer,

Dcc said I can't put off the herring even tho I'm waiting on a
Police check to prove iv no criminal conviction, which cost me a tenner, basicly even if tayside police are in the wrong which they are they dnt care

sounds about right !

What's the date for the hanging..erm..Hearing ?

Cheers nxt Thursday

Are you taking representation ?

[quote="Whitepearl"]Cheers nxt Thursday[/quot

I am not sure if you know but the cabs office have been monitoring this forum so be careful not to incriminate yourself free speech in Dundee comes at a price.

Was planing on going in myself as the it too late to get a solicitor, Ye no he monitors this forum not said anything thats not true or insulting, I went In the office and was I wasn't anything but polite, was Jst looking to see what was going on thought he might be a bit more understanding

You want me to represent you ?