Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Courts Are A Joke When Taxi Driver Still Allowed To Work After Guilty Plea

  • 09-04-2019 9:39pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 10,612 ✭✭✭✭ Spook_ie


    https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/taxi-driver-sexually-assaulted-three-young-vulnerable-women-916667.html

    So according to the report he can still drive a taxi while on bail awaiting sentence after pleading guilty! Just not allowed to have female passengers in front seat.
    Mansoor Uddin (41), a married father-of-three, sexually assaulted two of the women on the same night after demanding that one of them get out of his taxi when he saw her trying to get a photo of his identification.
    Uddin of Castleway, Adamstown, Lucan, Co Dublin pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to sexual assault on January 30, 2016 and two sexual assaults on February 16, 2016.

    Judge Sinéad Ní Chulacháin adjourned the case to May 8, next, for sentence and remanded Uddin on continuing bail.
    Sgt Cronin agreed with Seamus Clarke SC, defending, that as part of his bail conditions a female passenger is not permitted to be a front seat passenger in Uddin's taxi.

    She accepted that he is a Pakistan national who is married with two teenage daughters and a younger son.

    Mr Clarke said the three women were “young vulnerable people who were relying on him to bring them home safely and he didn't do that.”

    Mr Clarke will address the court with a plea in mitigation on the next date.

    Absolute joke! Absolutely fuming!


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,998 ✭✭✭✭ AlekSmart


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/taxi-driver-sexually-assaulted-three-young-vulnerable-women-916667.html

    So according to the report he can still drive a taxi while on bail awaiting sentence after pleading guilty! Just not allowed to have female passengers in front seat.

    Absolute joke! Absolutely fuming!

    It's no joke.

    One has to consider that there may be "other"mitigating factors in play here.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,314 ✭✭✭✭ tayto lover


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    It's no joke.

    One has to consider that there may be "other"mitigating factors in play here.

    Such as?

    Three separate sexual attacks by a taxi driver of any race or color should ensure that that person never drives a taxi again. He should be remanded in custody for sentence.
    What if he strikes again before sentencing?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,484 ✭✭✭✭ Jamie2k9


    Certain representative bodies would probally brand the Judge as a racist if he was locked up.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    It's no joke.

    One has to consider that there may be "other"mitigating factors in play here.
    the bail condition is absolutely unenforceable. if a female passenger was to get into the front seat, he is not going to say 'i'm sorry, you can't sit there, it's a condition of my bail after conviction for sexual assault'.

    it's just astounding that a taxi driver does not automatically have their licence taken in these circumstances; this is not someone awaiting fair trial, this is someone awaiting *sentencing* - and for a serious crime - and being allowed work in an environment where he would come into contact with more potential victims.

    the racism card is horse****. no one would bat an eyelid if a caucasian person was locked up for this.

    maybe the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to take the taxi licence off him, but it's farcical if no-one else does.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,933 ✭✭✭ GM228


    He should be remanded in custody for sentence.

    The court can't do that.


    maybe the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to take the taxi licence off him, but it's farcical if no-one else does.

    Only the Gardaí have that power.

    The OP opened another thread on the subject in the Legal Discussion forum which is more suited to the discussion here:-

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057971506


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,233 ✭✭✭✭ Sleeper12


    AlekSmart wrote:
    One has to consider that there may be "other"mitigating factors in play here.


    The judge has ensured that many women won't get into a taxi with a Pakistani looking driver because they don't know if its him or not. These bail conditions also help racist people /groups spread their ignorant beliefs.

    Does the judge feel that he is a risk to female passenger in the front seat? What about a drunk or passed out female in the back seat? Is she safe?

    A poorly thought out decision at best imo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,933 ✭✭✭ GM228


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    The judge has ensured that many women won't get into a taxi with a Pakistani looking driver because they don't know if its him or not. These bail conditions also help racist people /groups spread their ignorant beliefs.

    Does the judge feel that he is a risk to female passenger in the front seat? What about a drunk or passed out female in the back seat? Is she safe?

    A poorly thought out decision at best imo.

    There is not anything more a judge can do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,233 ✭✭✭✭ Sleeper12


    GM228 wrote: »
    There is not anything more a judge can do.


    He shouldn't have mentioned female passengers in the front seat at all. He should have left it to the Garda Commissioner who wont renew his licensee. By getting involved he's implying women aren't safe in his front seat but they are in the back.


    Also he could have locked him up while waiting sentencing or he could have made it a condition of bail that he doesn't drive the taxi.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    GM228 wrote: »
    There is not anything more a judge can do.
    if a judge can set a bail condition on him having a female passenger in the front seat, why could they judge not set a condition on him having any unaccompanied female passengers at all? etc. etc.

    i'd be surprised if the taxi federation don't kick up a stink about this. i was talking to my wife about this last night, and she said 'now you see why i don't like getting into taxis on my own'. this certainly won't increase demand for taxis...


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,233 ✭✭✭✭ Sleeper12


    if a judge can set a bail condition on him having a female passenger in the front seat, why could they judge not set a condition on him having any unaccompanied female passengers at all? etc. etc.

    i'd be surprised if the taxi federation don't kick up a stink about this. i was talking to my wife about this last night, and she said 'now you see why i don't like getting into taxis on my own'. this certainly won't increase demand for taxis...




    It's a major step back for race relations. Many women wont get into a car with a forein driver. Race hate groups use stuff like this to push thier agenda. There is another thread where they are calling for him to be deported. Racists exploit stories like this


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,933 ✭✭✭ GM228


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Also he could have locked him up while waiting sentencing or he could have made it a condition of bail that he doesn't drive the taxi.

    Read the discussion in the Legal Discussion forum and you will see neither of those is an option.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,612 ✭✭✭✭ Spook_ie


    GM228 wrote: »
    Read the discussion in the Legal Discussion forum and you will see neither of those is an option.

    But as said earlier they made a condition that he can't have female passengers in the front seat therefore the court does feel they can restrict his licence use, following on from that there would seem to be no reason they couldn't impose tougher restrictions including things like not working between the hours of 8.00pm and 8.00am, when most vulnerable people ( tipsy women in particular ) are around.

    As for bail, why? remand him until sentencing and be done on the basis that he has committed 3 section 2 rape offences, each of which could carry a 5 year term.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,933 ✭✭✭ GM228


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    But as said earlier they made a condition that he can't have female passengers in the front seat therefore the court does feel they can restrict his licence use, following on from that there would seem to be no reason they couldn't impose tougher restrictions including things like not working between the hours of 8.00pm and 8.00am, when most vulnerable people ( tipsy women in particular ) are around.

    The court is not restricting the use of the licence because use of a licence is not dependant on where someone can sit in your taxi, there is an argument to be made that if say 4 women hailed his taxi he would have to refuse the fare and this could potentially raise a constitutional argument as could a time restriction. A court will not intentionally delve into potential constitutional clashes.


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    As for bail, why? remand him until sentencing and be done on the basis that he has committed 3 section 2 rape offences, each of which could carry a 5 year term.

    You can't remand someone on bail just because they committed an offence.

    The provisions of the Bail Act 1997 which we discussed in the Legal Discussion thread apply to pre-trial only, not when awaiting sentence, you can't remand someone waiting for sentence longer than 15 days (or 30 with both parties consent) as provided for under the Criminal Procedure Act 1967.

    Also a S2 offence is not a rape offence, this confusion often arises due to it being proscribed by the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, it's a sexual assault offence, there's a difference.

    I'm not so sure the C&T forum is the appropriate place for this type of discussion, may I suggest it be merged with the LD forum and continued there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,612 ✭✭✭✭ Spook_ie


    GM228 wrote: »
    The court is not restricting the use of the licence because use of a licence is not dependant on where someone can sit in your taxi, there is an argument to be made that if say 4 women hailed his taxi he would have to refuse the fare and this could potentially raise a constitutional argument as could a time restriction. A court will not intentionally delve into potential constitutional clashes.





    You can't remand someone on bail just because they committed an offence.

    The provisions of the Bail Act 1997 which we discussed in the Legal Discussion thread apply to pre-trial only, not when awaiting sentence, you can't remand someone waiting for sentence longer than 15 days (or 30 with both parties consent) as provided for under the Criminal Procedure Act 1967.

    Also a S2 offence is not a rape offence, this confusion often arises due to it being proscribed by the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, it's a sexual assault offence, there's a difference.

    I'm not so sure the C&T forum is the appropriate place for this type of discussion, may I suggest it be merged with the LD forum and continued there.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/leinster/2019/0410/1041837-court/

    would seem to suggest that you can be remanded for sentencing even if you were previously out on bail. Maybe the judiciary just value money more than safety?
    Having heard the case, Judge Baxter said she would hand down her sentence at a sitting of the court in Dundalk on 2 May and remanded Dalton in custody.


    https://www.thejournal.ie/mark-dalton-guilty-housing-money-3943810-Apr2018/
    His solicitor Frank Taaffe said:

    These are very serious charges with very serious consequences. From the outset, he has pleaded guilty.

    No objection was made to the defendant’s application for bail.

    Judge Zaidan ordered that be released on bail on his own bond of €5,000.


  • Registered Users Posts: 765 ✭✭✭ Mr.Frame


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Certain representative bodies would probally brand the Judge as a racist if he was locked up.

    Really ? What representative bodies? Name them


  • Registered Users Posts: 765 ✭✭✭ Mr.Frame


    i'd be surprised if the taxi federation don't kick up a stink about this.

    They have. Every rep body out there are appalled by these bail conditions


  • Registered Users Posts: 358 ✭✭ Pronto63


    Listening to The Last Word on TodayFM this evening and the Garda press office contacted the show to state that his licence was revoked in Feb


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,933 ✭✭✭ GM228


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    https://www.rte.ie/news/leinster/2019/0410/1041837-court/

    would seem to suggest that you can be remanded for sentencing even if you were previously out on bail. Maybe the judiciary just value money more than safety?

    Yes you can be remanded for sentencing, max 15 days or 30 with consent.

    Note what I said:-
    GM228 wrote: »
    you can't remand someone waiting for sentence longer than 15 days (or 30 with both parties consent) as provided for under the Criminal Procedure Act 1967


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,933 ✭✭✭ GM228




  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    the next question is - where was the breakdown that the judge was not informed of this?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,233 ✭✭✭✭ Sleeper12


    the next question is - where was the breakdown that the judge was not informed of this?

    My question is why did he impose such a ridiculous condition to the man's bail even if he did have a licence. The optics of that condition were bad. Ill judged (pardon the pun) in my opinion


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,612 ✭✭✭✭ Spook_ie


    Something odd over the timings, if he was convicted in Feb why was he reported in court on the 9th April? If his license was revoked in February, why the bail condition?

    And are they referring to an SPSV license rather than his SPSV drivers license


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,612 ✭✭✭✭ Spook_ie


    GM228 wrote: »
    Yes you can be remanded for sentencing, max 15 days or 30 with consent.

    Note what I said:-

    So he could have been remanded, so why wasn't he as I said that would have stopped all this passenger front seat malarkey.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,612 ✭✭✭✭ Spook_ie


    GM228 wrote: »
    the next question is - where was the breakdown that the judge was not informed of this?
    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    My question is why did he impose such a ridiculous condition to the man's bail even if he did have a licence. The optics of that condition were bad. Ill judged (pardon the pun) in my opinion

    Reads to me as Vehicle license NOT SPSV Drivers licence


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,233 ✭✭✭✭ Sleeper12


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Reads to me as Vehicle license NOT SPSV Drivers licence


    I agree with you. now that we know that he lost his license before the bail conditions, the bail conditions make more sense


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,933 ✭✭✭ GM228


    There's some confusion in this thread which is not helped by the way this was reported by the media, the media reporting even led to a misinformed debate in the Dail on the issue.

    So let me clarify a few things:-

    the next question is - where was the breakdown that the judge was not informed of this?
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Something odd over the timings, if he was convicted in Feb why was he reported in court on the 9th April? If his license was revoked in February, why the bail condition?

    He pleaded quilty on February 28th, the Bail conditions were also set by the judge on the same day.

    As a result of his guilty plea his licence was then revoked by AGS.

    The sentence hearing was set for April 8th, but subsequently adjourned and so he was given continuing bail, and this is where the media went wrong in their reporting. They make it sound like the restriction was placed on the 8th after the licence withdrawn, it wasn't, it was made in February but as it was continuing Bail the conditions attached remained in force.


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    So he could have been remanded, so why wasn't he as I said that would have stopped all this passenger front seat malarkey.

    No he couldn't, again note what I stated:-
    GM228 wrote: »
    You can't remand someone on bail just because they committed an offence.

    The provisions of the Bail Act 1997 which we discussed in the Legal Discussion thread apply to pre-trial only, not when awaiting sentence, you can't remand someone waiting for sentence longer than 15 days (or 30 with both parties consent) as provided for under the Criminal Procedure Act 1967

    Also note my post from the LD forum:-
    GM228 wrote: »
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No.  But it does give grounds for a constitutional objection to bail conditions which prevent you from earning your livelihood.

    +1, and it would not be the first time Bail has become the subject of a constitutional challenge, in fact provisions of the Bail Act 1997 are pretty much a direct effect of the last major Bail Constitutional challenge, namely the Supreme Court People (Attorney General) vs O’Callaghan [1966] IR 501 case and the resulting so-called O'Callaghan Rules which only allowed for Bail to be used as a means to prevent possible escape from justice.

    Following the 16th Amendment of the Constitution and the insertion of Article 40.6.6 the 1997 Act was enacted and the so-called O'Callaghan Rules were furthered upon and allowed Bail to be used as more than a means to prevent escape from justice.

    The mere fact of committing a crime is not grounds for refusing Bail, this has been held by both the Supreme Court as well as the European Court of Human Rights. The provisions of the Bail Act 1997 and the furthering of the O'Callaghan Rules in relation to a potential of committing a serious offence apply to pre-trial only remand, not sentencing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,612 ✭✭✭✭ Spook_ie


    And on we go.....
    https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/taxi-driver-case-prompts-concerns-over-enforceability-of-bail-conditions-in-sexual-offence-cases-925705.html

    Noeline Blackwell was commenting on the bail conditions imposed on a taxi driver who was not allowed carry passengers in the front seat or to work at night time during the time between being charged and when he made his guilty plea on the morning of his trial in February.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,287 ✭✭✭ n97 mini


    I can't follow what happened with the licensing. The Gardaí immediately revoked the licence for the vehicle, but his taxi driver's licence wasn't revoked as it's not within the Garda remit, so he could still ply for trade in a different licensed vehicle. Is that correct?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,612 ✭✭✭✭ Spook_ie


    The problem seems to be there is no clear indication of when and what bail conditions were imposed, the original thread died a death with the presumed assumption that the bail conditions were the ones set after his guilty plea where as the rape crisis center now seem to be saying they were imposed between him being charged and him pleading guilty.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement