- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Royal Courts of Justice, London (picture bortescristian, Wikimedia Commons)Cabbie who injured cyclist in hit-and-run incident gets taxi licence back after landmark High Court decision
A Brighton & Hove taxi driver whose Hackney carriage licence was taken away following a hit-and-run incident in which a cyclist was injured has won it back after appealing to the High Court.
The landmark ruling, handed down last Wednesday, shifts the onus onto licensing authorities to demonstrate someone is unfit to hold such a licence.
A cycling campaigners has said that the ruling may lead to unsuitable people being allowed to drive taxis.
Brighton & Hove City Council revoked Mehrdad Kaivanpor’s licence after he was arrested and charged with careless driving and failure to stop after he knocked cyclist Robyn Gargyn from her bike in May 2014, reports The Argus.
Ms Gargan, who sustained bruises and suffered headaches following the incident, said after it happened: “He must have known what happened. He knocked a 19-year-old girl off her bike yet he just drove off.
“I am not happy knowing he is still out there. Of all people, you would expect a taxi driver to stop – I could have been dead.”
Kaivanpor reported the incident to police an hour after it happened and in October last year was fined £650 after pleading guilty to the charges and had 9 points put on his driving licence, says the newspaper.
At the same time, he was unsuccessful in appealing the suspension of his Hackney carriage licence because he was unable to prove he was a “fit and proper” person to hold one. It was a further appeal against that decision that was heard by the High Court last week.
David Lewis-Hall, on behalf of Kaivanpor, argued that rather than the taxi driver having to fulfil those criteria, the onus should be on the council to prove he or she is unfit to hold a licence.
Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Wilkie agreed with him, in a decision that will bind local authorities across England and Wales, unless overturned on any subsequent higher appeal.
Mr Lewis-Hall said: “If the council are interfering with your right to earn a living, then surely it must be right for them to justify their interference.”
“This is an important ruling as it means that taxi drivers start from a position of innocence in the eyes of the court - rather than having to prove they are 'not guilty'.
"This is an important point from a natural justice and human rights angle,” he added.
However, Becky Reynolds, head of campaigns at Brighton & Hove cycling campaigners Bricycles, warned that the judgment could make the roads less safe.
“We really need to be very strict about who we licence,” she told the Argus.
“Licensing the wrong people could lead to more death and injury on our roads.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Biker Phil 1 sec ago
They won awards last year too. It is a refreshing channel to watch. You should try watching it, much better than the BBC, ITN, SKY etc. They are...
- Rendel Harris 7 min 20 sec ago
Well they can't all show the celebrated openness to persuasion, tolerance for alternative views and willingness to debate that you on the right so...
- eburtthebike 29 min 3 sec ago
“This isn’t the first time a local authority has failed to consider the relevant government guidance before removing schemes designed to get more...
- eburtthebike 37 min 9 sec ago
Musk: “The only reason I am here, Jonathan, is because you are a friend.” Hilarious! As if he has friends.
- chrisonatrike 1 hour 33 min ago
Indeed! To pinch from CyclingMikey again:
- Surreyrider 1 hour 40 min ago
The answer is obviously no. A gravel bike is for riding gravel....
- richliv 2 hours 56 min ago
I bought something from Wiggle last week (on credit card), it arrived without issue. So for now, they are functioning.
- mike the bike 3 hours 33 min ago
Anyone looking for a GoreTex jacket because they think it's waterproof and breathable might care to look at Ryan's review of the material on the...
- Car Delenda Est 3 hours 41 min ago
If local communities wanted to march their children off a cliff would that be the right choice? Because that's what's happening right now..
Add new comment
23 comments
If you step back and ponder this without getting emotive it's a sound ruling in my opinion.
I loathe the guy for what he did but I think that it is proper and just that the deciding authority has to prove that he is unfit rather him prove that he is not.
If you are suspected of committing a criminal offence you don't have to prove you are innocent, the law states the prosecuting authority has to prove you are guilty. I can't see why this cannot apply to taxi driver permits and their regulation. I do hope that the authority involved now retrospectively begins proceedings proper.
He'd been banned because he actually DID it! What more proof do you need!?
Unbelievable! Careful in Brighton everyone!
How about proving he is fit to drive a taxi again by retaking his driving test? In fact why not make that the rule for all?
One solution: if this driver gets his operating licence back then boycott the taxi company that uses him.
A question for My Luds: would you allow a gamekeeper to get their firearms licence as apart of a means of earning of a living if they had been found guilty of causing injury by reckless use of a shotgun?
"I'm torn on this one. On one hand I strongly believe you should be innocent until proven guilty, but surely if you are guilty of fleeing the scene you are automatically not fit to drive for a living. "
I don't understand the conflict.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but he pleaded guilty, to hit-and-run. If that doesn't make you ineligible to be a professional driver I don't know what does.
I may be entirely wrong, but I suspect this is probably about the council having to introduce new procedures before they can strip someone of their license rather than suggesting this individual is fit to drive despite their poor driving record. Rather than it being an automatic process, the council would have to have a review panel and a system of appeal, just as you might expect before being dismissed for misconduct from a permanent job.
From the outside, it looks like a bizare story.
but the judgement does not appear to be about weather this person is fit an propper to hold a license - really it looks like this is about the mechanisumn used to acutally suspend the license?
...so I'm guessing the next step is for the council to re-write their rules and checks on taxi drivers?
Spot on!
I wonder if this was the guy that nearly had me off the other weekend .... wish I'd paid a bit more attention to the palte now ...
oooo! I forgot I'm running a fly6 now, it's probably still on there.
If a Driving Instructor gets more than six points on their licence, they're not allowed to instruct. Can't see what the difference here is . . . . . 9 points?!
exactly, its a nonsense that a'professional' driver is able to carry on regardless, even tho he has been shown to be incompetent as a driver. He puts other roadusers (and his passengers ffs ) at risk.
exactly, its a nonsense that a'professional' driver is able to carry on regardless, even tho he has been shown to be incompetent as a driver. He puts other roadusers (and his passengers ffs ) at risk.
Not quite Chris. If an instructor gets 5 or more points from a single conviction or accumulates 6 or more over any 3-year period, the Registrar MAY CONSIDER removing them from the register. In reality there are many infringements of rules that are ignored by the DVSA, who tremble at the mere thought of a legal challenge.
I fail to understand why they should be allowed to accumulate any points. Surely we only want future drivers to be instructed by people who can obey the law at least? Mind you, ignoring their criminal behaviour may explain some of the driving done by those they train.
OK then, fair enough. Now B&H council are proceeding to prove that he's not fit, by way of his conviction, and remove it again, yes?
I dispare, the idiot has proved that they are unfit to drive, not only did they hit someone but they then fled the scene! What more proof does the council need!!!
what the bleep, the council have to prove he's not fit to drive a taxi? Surely by the very fact that he's just had 9 points put on his licence while driving a taxi is not evidence of unfitness?
What we need is taxi licences that are automatically invalidated when the driver has been found guilty of certain offences...
Just a simple change to the licencing rules and Bob's your mother's brother...
Surely his driving conviction is the proof that he is unfit to hold a taxi licence? The council isn't "interfering with his right to earn a living", it's just saying that he can't carry on this particular business any more because he's a bit rubbish at driving and his judgement is a but suspect. Analogous to a butcher who consistently sold rotten meat being told he can't be a butcher any more.
As others have said, the council didn't arbitrarily withdraw his taxi licence, they did it as a consequence of his actions.
I'm torn on this one. On one hand I strongly believe you should be innocent until proven guilty, but surely if you are guilty of fleeing the scene you are automatically not fit to drive for a living. In reality all it will do is sap a little more of the money available to local government, quite possibly at the expense of cycling infrastructure etc.
The fucker should be banned from driving for life irrespective of his need to drive a taxi to earn a living! He clearly has contempt for other road users in particular vulnerable road users such as cyclists. Still hopefully his insurance premiums should now be extortionate.
What do the council need to do to prove he isn't a fit and proper person - surely analyse his driving history, what will they find? Oh quele suprise - they find a recent conviction for careless driving, leaving the scene and 9 points. Sounds like appropriate proof to me
Legalese bullshit.
Would you let a teacher back in the class room if he was found guilty of hitting pupils?