Taxi Driver Online

Police notes used to block taxi licence

A BID by a former cabbie to have his taxi licence reinstated has been refused by magistrates because his name has been linked to violent incidents though he has never been convicted.

Mohammed Zaman, aged 25, of Hatfield Road, St Albans, initially held a licence for four years but when he applied to renew his licence in December last year it was refused by St Albans District Council's (SADC) licensing officer Karen Hollands.

She told St Albans magistrates that a standard Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check revealed that notes held by Herts Police showed Zaman's name had been mentioned in connection with three separate incidents of violence - two in 2002 and one in October 2006.

Mrs Hollands said she saw her overriding duty as protection of the public and as such did not consider Zaman "a fit and proper person" to hold a hackney carriage licence.

But Kevin McCartney, for Zaman, said a person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the former cabbie had no previous convictions.

Judith Adamson, for SADC, said statements from police officers and other witnesses showed they believed Zaman had been involved with the alleged incidents of violent behaviour - some of them directed against women. One case never proceeded because complainants changed their minds about supporting a prosecution.

Jeremy Fretter, a serving police officer, appeared as a character witness for Zaman with whom he had played cricket for 13 years. He also had letters of support from the Islamic Centre, Goldline Taxis and St Albans Airport Cabs.

Magistrates' chairman Mrs Georgina Palmer asked if she could see a full copy of the CRB report but was told it was inadmissible under the Data Protection Act unless Zaman agreed to it.

But extracts from the report were made available for the magistrates who backed the SADC decision saying the mere fact that Zaman's name had been mentioned in connection with these three incidents cast doubt on his suitability to work as a cab driver.

They also ordered him to pay £50 as a contribution to SADC's legal costs.

_________________
IDFIMH

That’s just plain wrong, so now anyone the police don’t like the look of can be put out of work, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Big brother is watching us all!

_________________
There's no excuse for animal abuse. If you ain't vegan you are an animal abuser.

This sucks by the way

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Problem is that it's a civil burden of proof that's relevant: the "balance of probabilities" as opposed to "beyond all reasonable doubt".

So although a jury could let someone off if they think he's probably guilty but there's some doubt about it, in effect the licensing process will stop the driver merely on the basis that he's probably guilty, even if there is some doubt about it.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Is it not therefore time for the councils to have to make all decisions beyond a resonable doubt ................... after all when we disagree with a decision it is brought before a court that does.

I just think that it will stop the councils looking so foolish when cases are brought before the magistrates.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

Why did he object to the bench seeing his CRB?

_________________
IDFIMH

Because it is his right.

_________________
Grandad,

And by using that right he has lost his license.

_________________
IDFIMH

Access to the CRB is irrelevant. For the reasons stated.

It should therefore not have been admissable as evidence.

He has been denied his licence on hearsay. Inadmissable testimony of officers who could not make the charge stick.

The guy should have his licence.

We should be sending a message to all councils by supporting this guy.

But it was him who appealed the council decision, therefore he had to prove he was 'fit and proper' to the court, not the other way around.

_________________
IDFIMH

i agree with Sussex here ! as if the man wanted his badge bad enough he would have had no problem showing off his "clean" CRB to secure his livelihood

the simply fact he held it back causes suspicion that there was something wrong in his history his wished to hide.

so they chose the safe option !!

Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Fact is the council has been allowed to use hearsay to allege he is not a fit and proper person. The courts have just confirmed that high degree of latitude. This surely can't be right.

He should appeal on the grounds that the original information used to take away his licence was not of sufficient proof to justify the council's decision.

After all, he has not been found guilty of any criminal act pertaining to these incidents.

And the court is not entitled to draw any inference from the fact that the individual chooses not to have his CRB discussed in public. Were I in the same position, I may just take the same position as a matter of principle. Having not been proven as having done anything wrong there is no reason why it should be.

Anyway, we all know the real reason for this is the council "digging" this individual out. This could happen to anyone who disagrees with and contests council policy and conduct. This has already happened to the Skull in Edinburgh. I expect them to try the same thing with me.

I know that the fight will not end with the granting of licences. When the time comes I will be facing a similar challenge as here. Which is why we should be supporting this guy.

There is a real issue of how the Act is interpreted in handing down temporary suspensions and the declaration of "fit and proper person" to exclude people.

The Act was not intended to be used in this way. There is no opportunity for taxi drivers to confront or question those who make complaint against them, to test the quality or veracity of that complaint. They are invited to give the very evidence which is used against them, without any prior warning that it will be so.

The council operates like a kangaroo court. There are no benchmarks. No consistency of application of the Law. There is no set tariff of penalties laid down. There is no right of appeal within the process. There is no independent arbitration. And those meting out the "justice" are both prosecutors and judges.

Also, where an act has been decided in the Law courts, and a sentence handed down, how can it be right and proper for the council to hand down a second sentence for the same crime? Even totalitarian states don't punish you twice.

In the case where the courts hand down a £150 fine for a minor misdemeanour, isn't it draconian for the council to hand down a further temporary suspension, not proscribed in the legislation, which amounts to a fine of loss of earnings of £2,000. If the crime had merited this, wouldn't the sheriff have handed such a sentence down? And, in the case of licence holders, shouldn't the Sheriff be deciding what the total penalty is, not the council? Or are councillors, sitting in their kangaroo courts, now placed above the rightful adminstrators of the law - the sheriffs?

This breaches every facet of human rights. It is an anachronism traced back to when legislators wrote law based on the simple premise that the bewildered herd didn't complain.

Times they are a changing. It's long overdue to have unjust processes this binned and replaced with a fair hearing system, where the rights of an individual to be deemed innocent until proven guilty are enshrined. Where penalties are clearly proscribed. Where appeals can be heard. And all funded by the process itself so that those brought to task are not financially burdened by the process and their defence quality unjustly impaired.

That's the task. That's what you should be supporting.

[jasbar"]

well lets cut the chase and save everyone writing and guessing !!


what is the real reason they have picked this individual out ????

I suspect the inference here is that this guy has done something wrong and that the council is right to dig him out.

However, I would suggest it's long been the practice of councils to use this tactic unfairly to mitigate against those who simply object or are vociferous against their policies.

Even if this guy did deserve to be thrown out of work, then the basic principle holds and the council should not be allowed to get away with it.

Under this system, the innocent are just as at risk as the guilty. How can we accept this?

The fact that he didn't want the court to see his CRB tells me that it was a tad iffy.

Now the council had full view of his CRB, and used it as a reason not to re-license him. Along with the hearsay evidence.

Now I would have bundles of sympathy for the chap if the CRB wasn't an issue. But in my view it is, thus I don't.

_________________
IDFIMH