IN THE NEWS
KEIGHLEY PH OPERATOR LOSES LICENCE AFTER CLASS A DRUG DEALING TOOK PLACE AT THE BASE
The operator of a PH company based at Keighley rail station has been stripped of his licence after a court heard Class A drug dealing took place on the premises. Magistrates decided that Akmal Sakander, operator of Central Private Hire, was not a fit and proper person to run a private hire business during a hearing at Bradford Magistrates’ Court when it was heard heroin, cocaine and crack were allegedly being dealt “under his nose.” The office had been raided by police last April following oper- ations where undercover officers were allegedly dealt those drugs by an individual in the company’ s office. An individual has since been charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Mr Sakander had been stripped of his licence by Bradford MDC in May 2024; but he appealed this decision, which was heard on 6 February. During the appeal, it was argued that he had no idea drug dealing was taking place on the premises, and that he should be allowed to continue operating the business. The court heard that Mr Sakander had run the cab company for over 20 years, and also worked full time nearby at Pennine Electrics, as well as operating a kitchen company. There had been no issues with police in the period he ran Central Private Hire. Although Mr Sak- ander spent most of his time working in his other job, he could access the company’ s CCTV on his phone, and told the court that if any issues arose he could quickly be back at the office.
44
When he was called for a meeting with licensing officers a few weeks after the raid, Mr Sakander said he was shocked by the line of questioning, which he compared to an “interrogation.” However, Sam Fowles, represent- ing Bradford Council said: “Your premises had been raided by police and a person arrested for dealing drugs on the premises. “When you were invited to speak to the council, was it beyond your ability to guess it would be about drug dealing on your premises? “You are the person with ultimate control and responsibility for ensuring the premises is operating lawfully. During that period there was heroin, cocaine and crack being dealt there which is a mas- sive failure on your part isn’t it?” Sakander responded: “Not if I didn’t know about it.” Mr Fowles replied: “It was happening under your nose. You having no idea it is going on despite being responsible for the business is a failure on your part isn’t it? Do you only think it’s a failure if you had known about it?” Sakander said: “How am I sup- posed to know there was drug dealing on my premises?” Mr Fowles replied: “That is your evidence to this court?” Mr Sakander replied: “Yes.” Magistrates were shown images of alleged drug dealing captured on the company’ s CCTV. Referring to the appellant’ s claims that he could monitor the CCTV while working his other job, Mr Fowles said: “You claim that if you saw someone dealing drugs in the premises you’d do something
about it. We’ve seen images of alleged drug dealing on your premises and you did nothing.” Mr Sakander said he saw moving images on his phone, and so it was difficult to
tell what was
happening in them. DS Neil Kelman of West Yorkshire Police gave evidence and said the CCTV appeared to show a cocaine deal taking place. Mr Ahmed for the defence, suggested that while a seasoned police officer may recognise a drug deal, his client may not: “Is it fair to say a lay person might not be able to guess what this image showed?” DS Kelman replied: “I’d expect that the exchange of a block of white substance for a large amount of cash would be recognised.” Summing up, Mr Fowles said: “The council revoked his licence because on his watch his premises was being used to deal drugs. The applicant has done nothing to prevent that state of affairs. “As someone who allows drug dealing on their premisies and, in his own evidence, had no idea what was going on, is he really a suitable person to be trusted with a licence to operate a taxi firm? The refusal to accept responsibility is the basis for this applicant’s case.” Magistrates judged the council made the right decision to strip Mr Sakander of his licence
and
dismissed the appeal. Mrs Coward, chair of the bench said: “You agree you had no know- ledge of what was happening on the premises. You are not a fit and proper person to operate a business like this.” He was ordered to pay £5,890 costs.
MARCH 2025 PHTM
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 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
