Bail Conditions and how could you enforce them?

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

I note with interest that the term "The Taxi licence was revoked" not that HIS licence was revoked, possibly a typo but I'd be looking for clarification on Vehicle ( SPSV ) licence or Driver ( SPSV ) licence

Does the guy have a vehicle (SPSV) licence?

Would make no sense at all to cancel the vehicle licence in this circumstance, while leaving the driver licence in place, since the offences do not suggest that the vehicle is in any way unfit, but do suggest that the driver is unfit. Would the guards even have any grounds for cancelling the vehicle licence?

But I don't think there's any doubt. There is further clarification in the responses to the initial twee, again from AGS, saying "this drivers licence was revoked in February, he is no longer a taxi driver".

Spook_ie

If it is the same person referred to in various tweets and FB postings, then yes he does have an SPSV vehicle licence as well as an SPSV driver's licence.

The plate owned by said individual lapsed in Nov 2018, a lapsed plate does not normally expire until 365 days after its initial lapse so if not renewed could possibly be revoked under Section 12 (1) of the Taxi Regs 2013 but if not revoked could be reinstated anytime up to Nov 2019 upon payment of a lapsed licence fee currently of €500


Edit Again if this is the same person in the various tweets etc. Then his driver SPSV licence is still showing as valid, AGS would need to retweet it completely to avoid any confusion.

Peregrinus

The tweets, obviously, have no legal effect or consequences, one way or the other.

I agree that the intitial tweet was perhaps ambiguous, but common sense points to one interpretation bein the correct one and the other almost certainly not and, for those lacking in common sense, the subsequent clarifying tweet seems to cover the point.

I'd be more worried if the publicly-accessible database of licences is still showing him as a licensed SPSV driver. The point of having such a database is pretty much negated if the public can't rely on its accruacy. If his licence was cancelled in February and he is still showing up on the database as licensed in April, that would bother me much more than any amount of careless tweeting, and it's not a problem that can be resolved by any amount of accurate tweeting.

I just checked on this website. The guy shows up as having an active licence, and the claim is that the data is updated every 24 hours. Something's wrong.

(But, relevant to the context of this thread, not something for which we can blame the court.)

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Would make no sense at all to cancel the vehicle licence in this circumstance

I'm not sure of the exact details, but I think there system is one driver-one vehicle, meaning a licenced driver can't just drive any taxi.

Would the guards even have any grounds for cancelling the vehicle licence?

Maybe there was paperwork that wasn't up to date or not filed? Maybe it is this administrative matter that triggered the events in court.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Would the guards even have any grounds for cancelling the vehicle licence?

Whilst the SPSV driver licence falls under AGS the SPSV vehicle licence falls under the remit of the NTA, it would be for the NTA to cancle.

GM228

Victor wrote: »

I'm not sure of the exact details, but I think there system is one driver-one vehicle, meaning a licenced driver can't just drive any taxi.

Correct.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

I'm not sure of the exact details, but I think there system is one driver-one vehicle, meaning a licenced driver can't just drive any taxi.

Even so, I wouldn't see the point in cancelling the vehicle licence. A conviction like this points to a personal unfitness to drive a taxi, and it would be appropriate to cancel the driver licence. The vehicle itself is as suitable as it ever was for use as a taxi, and I see no reason to cancel the vehicle licence. What would be the point of doing so? If another licensed driver wants to rent the vehicle and drive it as a tax, and if the licensing arrnagements generally can accommodate that, why would we want to stop it?

Victor wrote: »

Maybe there was paperwork that wasn't up to date or not filed? Maybe it is this administrative matter that triggered the events in court.

My guess is that the events in court arose because nobody expected the licensing issue to come up, since it's not something in which the court is normally involved. If the judge raised the issue spontaneously, the defence were hardly going to point out that their man's licence had already been cancelled (even if they were aware of that) and the prosecution might simply not have known, since this isn't something that would normally be relevant to sentencing.

So, maybe the judge indicates that he's happy to grant bail pending sentencing but wants to impose conditions referring to taxi-driving, not realising that this is already ruled out. The defence doesn't want to say that the licence has already been revoked, so they just say their man will not object to conditions being imposed. The prosecution, perhaps, thinks the licence may already have been cancelled and is pretty confident that, if it hasn't been, it soon will be, but he doesn't actually know the current position. The judge is told that he doesn't have power to revoke or suspend the licence, but he can impose bail conditions that he things might be needed. Somebody, possibly the judge, suggests "no women in the front seat". The defence aren't going to object because why would they? The prosecution doesn't want to engage with the issue because that might bring out that he doesn't know the current status of the licence and, anyway, he thinks its a sideshow because the real constraint on the defendant will be the cancellation of his licence by the licensing authority. So it goes through on the nod.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Whilst the SPSV driver licence falls under AGS the SPSV vehicle licence falls under the remit of the NTA, it would be for the NTA to cancle.

Ah. That might explain why the guards' tweet didn't clarify whether they were talking about vehicle licences or driver licenses. They only ever deal with driver licences, so they wouldn't be in the habit of being specific.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah. That might explain why the guards' tweet didn't clarify whether they were talking about vehicle licences or driver licenses. They only ever deal with driver licences, so they wouldn't be in the habit of being specific.

We must also bear in mind that the Twitter handle is operated by a civilian attached to the Press Office and most civilians probably think of a "taxi licence" as the drivers licence for example, they would not have the same knowledge of the system as regular Gardaí or those attached to the Carriage Office.

There is no vehicle assigned to his driver licence, but it is odd that that still shows as valid.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even so, I wouldn't see the point in cancelling the vehicle licence. A conviction like this points to a personal unfitness to drive a taxi, and it would be appropriate to cancel the driver licence. The vehicle itself is as suitable as it ever was for use as a taxi, and I see no reason to cancel the vehicle licence. What would be the point of doing so? If another licensed driver wants to rent the vehicle and drive it as a tax, and if the licensing arrnagements generally can accommodate that, why would we want to stop it?

A taxi needs to have tax, insurance, a (modified) NCT, etc. If a taxi driver doesn't submit up to date documentation, presumably a taxi driver licence will expire automatically.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, maybe the judge indicates that he's

The case was before Judge Sinéad Ní Chulacháin, which is why some commentators are surprised at the matter.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

A taxi needs to have tax, insurance, a (modified) NCT, etc. If a taxi driver doesn't submit up to date documentation, presumably a taxi driver licence will expire automatically.

Why would it? If you're a fit and proper person to drive a taxi, you don't become unfit just because you stop driving one for a while, for whatever reason. I would have expected that if you stop driving a taxi for a while, when you want to get back on the road you just submit the required documentation to connect your driver licence to whatever licensed SPSV you will be driving (which need not be the one you were driving before) and away you go.

Victor wrote: »

The case was before Judge Sinéad Ní Chulacháin, which is why some commentators are surprised at the matter.

Mm. Her powers don't be expanded just because she is a woman. I think the commentators' suprise is mainly attributable to an assumptiont that, as a judge, she has the power to cancel a drivers SPSV licnence. Which is perhaps not a completely unreasonable assumption but, nevertheless, is wrong.

(Just like, perhaps, my assumption in my first paragraph about how driver SPSV licences are treated if the holder isn't driving a taxi for a period! )

ED E

GM228 wrote: »

We must also bear in mind that the Twitter handle is operated by a civilian attached to the Press Office

To the keen observer it appears that the account is operated by multiple persons.

Spook_ie

The driver's license has a valid until date associated with it, once the date has passed you are no longer licenced, you then have a period of 1 year in which you may reactivate it, if you don't reactivate it within that year then you must redo the knowledge and industry test.


Afaik there is a clause on the vehicle licence that you need to be a fit and proper person to have one in your name.

I believe that Section 10 (1) and section 12(1) of the Taxi Regs 2013 refers to this.

Also section 47(1) refers to a courts ability to revoke a license

GM228

Spook_ie wrote: »

The driver's license has a valid until date associated with it, once the date has passed you are no longer licenced, you then have a period of 1 year in which you may reactivate it, if you don't reactivate it within that year then you must redo the knowledge and industry test.


Afaik there is a clause on the vehicle licence that you need to be a fit and proper person to have one in your name.

I believe that Section 10 (1) and section 12(1) of the Taxi Regs 2013 refers to this.

Also section 47(1) refers to a courts ability to revoke a license

Section 47 (1) only gives a court the power to revoke a licence if you commit an offence contrary to the 2013 Act itself, not contrary to any other Act (or common law).

GM228

ED E wrote: »

To the keen observer it appears that the account is operated by multiple persons.

Oh the pedantics

GM228 wrote: »

We must also bear in mind that the Twitter handle is operated by a civilian civilians attached to the Press Office

Spook_ie

GM228 wrote: »

Section 47 (1) only gives a court the power to revoke a licence if you commit an offence contrary to the 2013 Act itself, not contrary to any other Act (or common law).

Part 4 Section 30 would be contrary to the act

Spook_ie

Anyways looks like the NTA having been caught with their knickers down over their driver check app now not being suitable for purpose have revoked licence ID K8106

GM228

Spook_ie wrote: »

Part 4 Section 30 would be contrary to the act

S30 is a provision of the Act, it does not create an offence under the Act.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Anyways looks like the NTA having been caught with their knickers down over their driver check app now not being suitable for purpose have revoked licence ID K8106

Actually belay that, the driver check app returns no driver with that ID, the TfI website returns a redacted page with no name of photo but still shows active