Bail Conditions and how could you enforce them?

Spook_ie · 09-04-2019 9:39pm #1

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

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.

Now just how on earth is that supposed to work?

Dayo93 · 09-04-2019 10:07pm

So he is still allowed operate as a taxi driver ?

Spook_ie · 09-04-2019 10:12pm

Dayo93 wrote: »

So he is still allowed operate as a taxi driver ?

One would assume from the wording that he is, just not allowed any female fares in the front seat of his taxi.

Atlantic Dawn · 09-04-2019 10:21pm

So does he have a female only taxi plate? Utter joke of a country.

Surely his taxi number should be released so every female and people choosing to avoid doing business with someone convicted of sexual assault can take their business elsewhere.

Spook_ie · 09-04-2019 10:29pm

As he has pleaded guilty he should be barred from operating taxi/hackney services, this restricted bail condition is in essence unworkable as far as I can see!

fritzelly · 09-04-2019 10:33pm

Three sexual assaults and allowed to go on his merry way continuing to do it (yeah like he's gonna tell anyone he's on bail and no females in the front seat)
Can no one have any cop on to say Judge - you're an idiot! (and the garda for agreeing to it)

Atlantic Dawn · 09-04-2019 11:03pm

This is actually completely unacceptable in a civilised country, I'm in shock.

fritzelly · 09-04-2019 11:05pm

I assume he cannot remove the licence or can he?
But the bail condition could have been along the lines of any pursuit where he may be in contact with young woman as part of his job...

MrFresh · 09-04-2019 11:05pm

fritzelly wrote: »

Three sexual assaults and allowed to go on his merry way continuing to do it (yeah like he's gonna tell anyone he's on bail and no females in the front seat)
Can no one have any cop on to say Judge - you're an idiot! (and the garda for agreeing to it)

Hasn't there already been cases before the higher courts about removing the livelihood of taxi drivers?

Pronto63 · 09-04-2019 11:23pm

Is this for real?

Surely someone that is a danger to the travelling public shouldn't be allowed to hold a taxi licence.

Any comment from the drivers rep assoc?

Atlantic Dawn · 09-04-2019 11:24pm

MrFresh wrote: »

Hasn't there already been cases before the higher courts about removing the livelihood of taxi drivers?

I don't think any sexual assaultists have been.

"He was a grand fella Joe until he had a female in the cab...."

drunkmonkey · 10-04-2019 12:27am

He pleaded guilty in January 2016, it's now April 2019. It's not the bail is the problem it's the speed at which things are dealt with.
It's ridiculous something should take that long for the victims and his own sake. Over 3yrs on bail is bannanas.
What's gone wrong that it's taken this lenght of time.

Peregrinus · 10-04-2019 2:24am

fritzelly wrote: »

I assume he cannot remove the licence or can he?

This is the key to it.

The court has no power to cancel his licence to drive a taxi, and there would be constitutional objections to a bail condition which prevented him from driving a taxi, since there is a constitutional right to earn a livelihood, and this is his livelihood.

The National Transport Authority does have power to cancel his taxi drivers licence, and presumably will do so in response to this conviction. But even if this happens quite quickly, it won't happen immediately; there's a process, and he has to be given an opportunity to challenge any decision to cancel his licence. Plus, the NTA will presumably want to wait for the results of the psychological assessment so they can take that into account in their decision.

Which means that there is inevitably going to be at least a short period in which this guy is still licensed to drive a taxi. The bail conditions are an attempt to regulate that period in a way that won't fall foul of constitutional objections.

Spook_ie · 10-04-2019 3:25am

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is the key to it.

The court has no power to cancel his licence to drive a taxi, and there would be constitutional objections to a bail condition which prevented him from driving a taxi, since there is a constitutional right to earn a livelihood, and this is his livelihood.

The National Transport Authority does have power to cancel his taxi drivers licence, and presumably will do so in response to this conviction. But even if this happens quite quickly, it won't happen immediately; there's a process, and he has to be given an opportunity to challenge any decision to cancel his licence. Plus, the NTA will presumably want to wait for the results of the psychological assessment so they can take that into account in their decision.

Which means that there is inevitably going to be at least a short period in which this guy is still licensed to drive a taxi. The bail conditions are an attempt to regulate that period in a way that won't fall foul of constitutional objections.

https://www.transportforireland.ie/clarification-on-taxi-driver-investigation/

Transport for Ireland are quite adamant that the Gardai not the NTA are responsible for driver licensing and revoking licenses etc. is the Garda remit and indeed they have revoked licenses before.

https://www.limerickpost.ie/2012/03/20/taxi-driver-fails-in-appeal-to-have-psv-licence-restored/

It would seem to me that his license could be revoked since his plea of guilty negates any further need of a trial other than sentencing etc. Placing a bail condition of not having female passengers in the front seat is an affront to common sense.

Peregrinus · 10-04-2019 3:41am

I take your correction about the guards, not the NTA, having the power to cancel the guy's licence.

But my point stands. The court doesn't have the power. And the guards only act in response to the court's verdict, and even then there is presumably a process which the guards must follow. So inevitably there will be some lapse of time between the conviction and the cancellation.

I've checked. Under the Taxi Regulation Act 2013, there's a mandatory disqualification from holding an SPSV driver licence on conviction of certain offences. It's not clear from the newspaper report whether the offences of which this guy was convicted are among those which result in an automatic disqualification, but I suspect they are. But the disqualifiation only takes effect when the time for appealing has expired or, if an appeal is brought, when the appeal is lost or withdrawn. So the bail conditions would operate in the meantime.

If the offence isn't one that attracts automatic disqualification, the SPSV licence can still be cancelled if the licensing authority is "satisfied that the holder of the licence is no longer a suitable person to hold a licence". And while I think it's highly likely that the guards would take that view, the court can't assume they will and, in any event, may still think there is merit in imposing bail conditions to operate until that happens. And it will take time; the licence holder has to be notified of the intent to cancel the licence, and told of the reasons, and has to have 14 days to make representations, which the authorities must consider before they revoke the licence. And, if they do revoke the licence, the licence holder has 28 days to appeal to the District Court, and the revocation doesn't take effect until that appeal is decided or withdrawn.

So, pending cancellation of the licence, the only options open to the court are (a) impose no restrictions at all on the guy's taxi-driving activities, or (b) impose such restrictions as will not be struck down as unconstitutional or improper. Which option do you want the court to take?

Spook_ie · 10-04-2019 4:16am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I take your correction about the guards, not the NTA, having the power to cancel the guy's licence.

But my point stands. The court doesn't have the power. And the guards only act in response to the court's verdict, and even then there is presumably a process which the guards must follow. So inevitably there will be some lapse of time between the conviction and the cancellation.

I've checked. Under the Taxi Regulation Act 2013, there's a mandatory disqualification from holding an SPSV driver licence on conviction of certain offences. It's not clear from the newspaper report whether the offences of which this guy was convicted are among those which result in an automatic disqualification, but I suspect they are. But the disqualifiation only takes effect when the time for appealing has expired or, if an appeal is brought, when the appeal is lost or withdrawn. So the bail conditions would operate in the meantime.

If the offence isn't one that attracts automatic disqualification, the SPSV licence can still be cancelled if the licensing authority is "satisfied that the holder of the licence is no longer a suitable person to hold a licence". And while I think it's highly likely that the guards would take that view, the court can't assume they will and, in any event, may still think there is merit in imposing bail conditions to operate until that happens. And it will take time; the licence holder has to be notified of the intent to cancel the licence, and told of the reasons, and has to have 14 days to make representations, which the authorities must consider before they revoke the licence. And, if they do revoke the licence, the licence holder has 28 days to appeal to the District Court, and the revocation doesn't take effect until that appeal is decided or withdrawn.

So, pending cancellation of the licence, the only options open to the court are (a) impose no restrictions at all on the guy's taxi-driving activities, or (b) impose such restrictions as will not be struck down as unconstitutional or improper. Which option do you want the court to take?

Being honest, remand him in custody, sentence him and revoke his license not play around with bail.

Peregrinus · 10-04-2019 5:22am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Being honest, remand him in custody, sentence him and revoke his license not play around with bail.

I repeat; the court has no power to revoke his licence. And, while they will sentence him, for obvious reasons they won't do so until the psychiatric reports are available.

Sleepy · 10-04-2019 5:04pm

If Bail can only be issued in a manner that puts the public at risk why on earth isn't he being held on remand?

fritzelly · 10-04-2019 5:40pm

Sleepy wrote: »

If Bail can only be issued in a manner that puts the public at risk why on earth isn't he being held on remand?

Exactly!

Peregrinus · 10-04-2019 5:41pm

Sleepy wrote: »

If Bail can only be issued in a manner that puts the public at risk why on earth isn't he being held on remand?

Because we don't have a system of preventive detention in Ireland; you can't lock somebody up on the basis that you think he might commit offences in the future; only on the basis of the offences for which has has been charged and convicted. And he hasn't yet been sentenced for those.

If a custodial sentence were inevitable, then he probably would be remanded pending sentencing. But if the judge feels that it's not inevitable, then it's not appropriate to remand in custody.

MrFresh · 10-04-2019 7:17pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because we don't have a system of preventive detention in Ireland; you can't lock somebody up on the basis that you think he might commit offences in the future; only on the basis of the offences for which has has been charged and convicted. And he hasn't yet been sentenced for those.

Does Section 2 of the Bail Act not cover the prevention of serious offences?

GM228 · 10-04-2019 9:40pm

MrFresh wrote: »

Does Section 2 of the Bail Act not cover the prevention of serious offences?

It only applies to a person charged with certain serious offences with a potential 5 year plus sentence.

Annasopra · 11-04-2019 6:43am

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Now just how on earth is that supposed to work?

Who set the bail conditions?

Peregrinus · 11-04-2019 7:01am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Who set the bail conditions?

The court.

magicbastarder · 11-04-2019 9:00am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The court has no power to cancel his licence to drive a taxi, and there would be constitutional objections to a bail condition which prevented him from driving a taxi, since there is a constitutional right to earn a livelihood, and this is his livelihood.

how generally can that be interpreted? if there is a right to *a* livelihood, does that grant a right to a specific livelihood?
we would not expect a youth worker awaiting sentencing for child abuse to be able to claim a constitutional right to continue with their job; and i know it's a much narrower 'use case' but i would not expect my employer to heed complaints about constitutional due process once i was fired after admitting to serious criminal offences.

Peregrinus · 11-04-2019 9:47am

magicbastarder wrote: »

how generally can that be interpreted? if there is a right to *a* livelihood, does that grant a right to a specific livelihood?

No. But it does give grounds for a constitutional objection to bail conditions which prevent you from earning your livelihood.

magicbastarder wrote: »

we would not expect a youth worker awaiting sentencing for child abuse to be able to claim a constitutional right to continue with their job; and i know it's a much narrower 'use case' but i would not expect my employer to heed complaints about constitutional due process once i was fired after admitting to serious criminal offences.

If the defendant was employed as a taxi driver, there's nothing to stop his employer firing him. But the court doesn't employ him, and so can't fire him. Similarly, the court doesn't licence him to drive a taxi, and so can't cancel his licence.

And this it the key to it. The court can't set bail conditions as a back-door way of doing something the court has no right or power to do. The Oireachtas hasn't given the court power to suspend or cancel taxi licences; the court can't used bail conditions as a way of grabbing that power. The licensing authority may suspend or cancel the guy's licence, but the courts can't pre-empt that any mroe than the NTA can.

GM228 · 11-04-2019 10:40am

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.

dcr22B · 11-04-2019 6:59pm

Can I just add that this individual's car licence lapsed in November 2018 but he is still showing up on the NTA Driver Check App as active (licence expiry 2023) but with no vehicle assigned to him.

Pronto63 · 11-04-2019 7:12pm

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

ED E · 11-04-2019 8:03pm

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1116415718109716485

Spook_ie · 12-04-2019 4:51am

ED E wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1116415718109716485

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

Following conviction the Garda Carriage Office was immediately
notified and the taxi licence (SPSV) was revoked in Feb with immediate
effect.

Peregrinus · 12-04-2019 5:13am

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 · 12-04-2019 5:42am

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 · 12-04-2019 6:44am

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 · 12-04-2019 7:04am

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 · 12-04-2019 7:31am

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 · 12-04-2019 7:34am

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 · 12-04-2019 7:39am

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 · 12-04-2019 7:43am

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 · 12-04-2019 7:47am

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 · 12-04-2019 7:52am

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 · 12-04-2019 8:16am

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 · 12-04-2019 11:22am

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 · 12-04-2019 11:25am

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 · 12-04-2019 11:31am

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 · 12-04-2019 11:37am

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 · 12-04-2019 12:25pm

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 · 12-04-2019 12:30pm

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 · 12-04-2019 12:30pm

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 · 12-04-2019 12:33pm

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

Bail Conditions and how could you enforce them?

Comments