A DUBLIN TAXI driver who admitted having sex with an allegedly “vulnerable” and drunk female passenger after a date stood her up has had his cab licence reinstated.

The man won an appeal at Dublin District Court against a decision by the Carriage Office to strip him of his small public service licence under the Taxi Regulation Act.

He cannot be named due to a court order.

The woman had reported him last year, but the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) directed that no charges be brought.

In January, while the DPP’s decision was still awaited, the Carriage Office, which oversees licensing of taxis, revoked his licence under section 12 of the Taxi Regulation Act.

Today, Judge Michael Ramsey acceded to an application from the driver’s counsel, Eimear Dooley BL, not to run the hearing in public, because her client had previously been questioned for an offence which attracted the in camera rule.

However, he further held that the media would not be excluded and that the parties involved must be anonymised in the reporting of proceedings.

Dooley, instructed by solicitor Aisling Dunne, said the case related to the revocation of her client’s taxi licence by Garda Superintendent Stephen McAuley of the Carriage Office.

Reasons cited by the superintendent were her client’s admission of consensual sex and that this conduct was wholly inappropriate.

However, Dooley stressed that “this was something that was entirely in the sphere of his private life” and not impermissible in the taxi regulations.

The superintendent told the court that the woman, who was a fare-paying passenger, was vulnerable.

Asked about that, the officer told the court: “It is a mixture of drink, the person had been out drinking that night and had quite a difficult evening in relation to a date that stood her up and was quite upset about that.”

The evidence was in the interview notes that the taxi man had acknowledged that she had “a terrible day”, he submitted.

The driver did not testify during the hearing, which was mainly comprised of exchanges of submissions between the barrister and the Carriage Office superintendent.

Dooley said the background to the revocation was an admission by the taxi man that he had consensual sex with a fare on a date last year.

There had never been any other complaints against the man.

Dooley said that it was confirmed that the DPP directed in May that the man would not be prosecuted. Superintendent McAuley confirmed, saying the DPP was of the view that it did not meet the threshold for a successful prosecution.

He still wished to oppose the appeal and said: “The fact remains here that the applicant took advantage of a vulnerable person he was supposed to look after and had sex with her, and that is not conduct that is expected”.

Dooley responded by arguing that it was an imputation of her client, who had the presumption of innocence.

The superintendent accepted that the man was not charged with any offence but argued that it did not negate the fact of what happened.

The driver’s interview statement was not submitted.

The superintendent cited the case law of another driver previously accused of sexual assault, who failed to have his licence restored, but that differed from the present matter because in that precedent, the taxi man was charged, proceeded to trial, resulting in an acquittal.

Regardless of the acquittal, certain attitudes became clear during that trial that the Carriage Office could consider, which Dooley also submitted was entirely distinct from the appeal before Judge Ramsey.

Counsel further said that there was a line of case law developing in the European Court of Human Rights under article 6.2 in terms of the presumption of innocence and its applicability in civil proceedings involving an imputation by a state body of criminal liability on a person where a prosecution either resulted in an acquittal, or a discontinuance.

Dooley stressed that it happened in her client’s private life and that she had searched the taxi regulations and could not find any mention of it being impermissible.

The superintendent said this was a licensing matter to rule on whether he had made the right decision on revocation and the driver’s suitability for a taxi licence.

He referred to section 12.2 of the regulations, stating, “the need to ensure the safety and welfare of passengers in small public service vehicles and other road users and any conduct by the licence holder, and where the holder is a company, the conduct of any person which calls into question the holder’s suitability to hold the licence”

He accepted that every single act which a taxi driver should or should not do was not defined in the legislation, but proffered that there had to be a degree of realism and common sense.

He stated that a taxi driver’s primary role was to ensure the safety of vulnerable people while they were passengers.

The head of the carriage office added that he believed that was relevant and it would be remiss of the court not to allow the facts that were fully admitted.

He said he was notified after the allegations were made and could not “unsee” what he had learned of the applicant’s description of the events that evening.

The superintendent said he could only rely on the record of the man’s account.

He was not inferring it as a criminal matter but noted that the conduct in a run-of-the-mill taxi fare was wholly inappropriate and way beyond any scope of a private relationship.  

Counsel submitted that these points were hearsay.

Judge Ramsey remarked that the action taken by the superintendent in January seemed fair at that time.

However, he described the DPP’s decision not to prosecute as a “dynamic change”, and noting the submissions and the evidence stating that there was consensual sex, he could not see the basis for refusing the licence reinstatement.