taxi talk mailbox
Dear Editor...
I
n the April issue of taxi talk, Wayne Casey admits to the proof of innocence test. But whatever the standard
being completely ignorant about London taxi law, but as of proof applied in the indecent exposure case, the fact
a working cab driver he should have a thorough knowledge remains that Article 6 of the European Convention on
of how he can expect to be treated by his licensing Human Rights is a ʻdue processʼ clause, worded so as to
authority should he ever be unfortunate enough to fi nd ensure that both civil and criminal proceedings provide
himself on complaint. Whether cabbies are from the north adequate protection for any person facing allegations of
or south, they have to make it their business to be well-
professional misconduct. In other words, even a council
informed on the matter of their legal rights.
offi cial authorised by law to exercise judicial power at a

disciplinary hearing, cannot override the rights guaranteed
With regard to tracking down rapist John Warboys and
by Article 6. Precisely what administrative steps the council
taking him off the streets of London, Wayne seems
took to revoke the driverʼs licence are unknown and I do
to think the Public Carriage Offi ce (PCO) could have
not accept that the driver lost his licence purely as a result
achieved what the police and CPS were unable to
of the councilʼs skill in applying the law. I think the council
achieve and he goes on to cite the case of a cabby
played a game of bluff with the driver and won. Although
living in the North East of England who lost his licence
I concede that this is one of the rare occasions when a
following an allegation of indecent exposure. What I
Wayne Casey article has given me food for thought, I
fi nd incongruous about this revocation case is how the
defi nitely do not agree with his suggestion, that the Public
licensing authority was able to punish the driver even
Carriage Offi ce in London has anything to learn from the
though the Human Rights Act 1998 lays down that there
North East case as to how bad apples in the cab trade
can be no punishment without a hearing or trial. Precisely
could be removed from the barrel.
how the pervert came to be dispossessed of his licence
deserves more clarifi cation. Whether he voluntarily
Going back to the case of John Worboys the rapist, when
handed over his licence to the local council or whether
the fi rst allegation of a sexual assault was made against
they ordered him to hand it over is not apparent from
him in July 2007, the complaint would have been taken
Wayneʼs article. I believe the driver simply threw in the
very seriously by PCO, but I do not subscribe the argument
towel and offered no resistance, which means the case
that the PCO should have pulled Worboys in regardless of
remains a long way from proving that licensing authorities
what the police intended to do about him. John Warboys
are at liberty to adopt unorthodox disciplinary procedures
stands out as a very cunning criminal and the PCO had
if that leads to success in weeding out bad cab drivers.
no realistic choice other than to give the police unfettered

Due to the nature of their work, taxi drivers knowingly and
freedom to investigate his vile behaviour towards female
inevitably subject themselves to a regulatory regime which
passengers. Looking back no further than the past ten
applies to nearly all drivers of public transport vehicles,
years, we cannot fail to be aware that too many innocent
hence strictly speaking there is nothing unduly oppressive
people have had their lives either damaged or ruined by
about the actions of a licensing authority that decides
the failings of our legal system. The systemʼs failings are
to question a licensed cab driver on the strength of a
more numerous than is assumed and we are ignorant of
complaint from a passenger. In certain circumstances
the true facts and fi gures because only the high profi le
the ʻaccusedʼ driver may rightfully refuse to respond to a
miscarriages of justice get nationwide coverage and
complaint, especially when it can be shown that there are
exposure. The PCO is under a duty to weigh up what is
insuffi cient legal grounds or lack of factual evidence.
ultimately at stake for any driver on complaint and the more

serious the complaint, the more legal expertise the PCO
The Human Rights Act 1998 introduced the European
has to apply to protect itself from being held responsible for
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law in
any miscarriage of justice that might be suffered by either a
October 2000. When Article 6 of the ECHR is read in the
driver or a complainant.
context of how licensing authorities are legally obliged

to handle complaints against cab drivers, it can be seen
Although the Worboys case has the potential to infl ict
that Article 6 provides that a driver on complaint shall be
heavy damage on the good name of the London taxi
presumed innocent until proved guilty. Article 6 also makes
industry, we have to accept that allegations of crimes
it clear that any disciplinary hearing attended by a driver
involving cab drivers have to be dealt by a properly
has to be a fair and formal hearing. A driver has the right to
convened hearing or court. In my view, those in the taxi
be fully informed of the details of any alleged misconduct;
trade who advocate that Warboys should have been
he also has the right to be represented by a qualifi ed legal
investigated and taken out of circulation by the PCO
professional and the right to compel witnesses to attend
before he was tried and convicted are letting their hearts
the hearing so that they can be examined and questioned.
rule their heads.


In Wayneʼs account of the indecent exposure case, he
Thankfully the handful of active activists within London
makes a scholarly reference to the two different standards
taxi trade are more than capable of restraining any move
of proof required by civil law and criminal law. In criminal intended to give the Public Carriage Offi ce the power to
cases to decide the facts in issue, the standard is proof shoot fi rst and ask questions later.
beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in civil cases the
standard is on a balance of probabilities. Apparently the Yours sincerely
council in the North East revoked the erring driverʼs
licence because in Wayneʼs words the driver did not pass Peter Cannon, London
to advertise in taxi talk call
08700 850 570
38
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52