CRACK DOWN ON EVIL TAXI DRIVERS.

More 'knee jerk' politics.

It's been announced that the government is considering instituting more restrictive rules on the granting of taxi licenses. This is apparently in an effort to reduce the risk of passengers being the victims of taxi drivers who have evil intent.

One assumes this is another part of the response to the story of the 'Black Cab Rapist', John Worboys, following on from the proposal to give victims of crime a stronger say in the parole process. That was a mistake and this is little better.

Apparently, the granting of licenses to prospective taxi drivers is currently a matter for individual councils and some are more lenient than others when it comes to considering an applicant's previous history. Now the government wants to implement new rules which all councils would have to abide by and which, presumably, would be at the tougher end of the spectrum. There are obvious problems with this approach.

Firstly, what about local autonomy ? At a time when there are ever more demands for local authorities to have greater power over their own areas and services, how can the implementation for nationwide rules make sense ? Surely it is up to each council area to assess its own needs and determine its own regulations.

Secondly, since when did checking past records ever stop criminals from acting in the present and future ? Criminal records' checks are all very well but they only flag up those who have been caught; the clever ones, or those who have yet to offend, pass the test with flying colours. There's also a big difference between crimes - where will the line be drawn in determining who can, and who cannot, be granted a license ?

Thirdly, what's to stop bogus taxi drivers from setting up in business or are we going to have a new agency, OFCAB perhaps, to monitor all taxi and minicab activity nationwide ? 

Fourthly, how many taxi drivers have actually been found guilty of any crime against a passenger in, say, the last 10 years ? The government's 'Taxis Minister' (really ??) has been quoted as saying that "we have seen too many cases where taxi and minicab drivers have used their job to prey on vulnerable people, women and children". Nowhere can I find any numbers to back up this claim.

Is this not just another example of government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut ? Of more 'knee jerk' law making ? Of yet more restrictions on individual freedom in the pursuit of unachievable perfection ? Why not just microchip us all at birth so that the government can know our whereabouts and actions at every moment of every day ? That would solve the problem once and for all.

VICTIMS HAVE NO SPECIAL RIGHTS IN PAROLE HEARINGS

In this country, we have a well established legal process. 

Someone commits a crime and gets caught; they're charged, tried and sentenced, which may mean they go to prison. For some of the more serious offenders, their prison terms may be quite long and the question of when, or whether, they should be released is eventually considered by the Parole Board. The Board will determine whether release 'on parole' is appropriate and, if it is, the conditions under which that parole will be served. However, it seems that things are about to change.

As a result of the furore surrounding the case of John Worboys, a convicted serial rapist, our government is proposing that 'victims' should be given a greater say in such matters. The problem is that this knee-jerk reaction from politicians anxious to garner favour with every special interest group they can find is fundamentally wrong and risks bringing our entire criminal justice system down around our ears.

Of course, victims of crime, especially serious crime, feel aggrieved. Of course some might want to see their oppressors locked up for good, tortured, even hanged drawn and quartered, but that is not justice it is vengeance. At the same time, some may prefer to be merciful and may wish to forgive the offender, welcoming them back into society as reformed characters at the earliest opportunity.

The outcry over the Worboys case came from those of the 'hang, draw and quarter' brigade and the government has not only caved in to them but now proposes to change the entire basis of parole to accommodate their extreme views. The views of the forgiving element of society are ignored in favour of satisfying the strident cries of the others. Worse, the role of the courts and Parole Board are to be made secondary to the baying of public mobs.

Already, 'victims' are permitted to make statements in court prior to sentencing, something which also flies in the face of justice. Sentencing is not about how much the 'victim' cries, or how strongly they may be able to tug at the heart strings of judge and jury, but is about the nature of the crime committed. If an elderly person with no relatives and few friends is murdered, and there is no one to tell the court how much they are missed, is their death any less of a crime than is that of the child whose grieving parents and multitude of Facebook 'friends' queue up to beg the judge to 'throw the book at them' ? Murder is murder, regardless of the impact on those left behind. Similarly, some 'victims' may recover more easily, be more resilient, than others; does this mean that the offenders who choose the less resilient 'victims' should receive harsher penalties ? Clearly it does not. In the words of Gilbert and Sullivan "let the punishment fit the crime", and not the wants of the 'victim'.

The same applies to the parole system. Once all of the facts have been considered, whether or not parole is to be granted cannot be a matter for angry 'victims' to decide; it is a matter for dispassionate and unconnected individuals to determine. For our government to now be in the process of changing this basic principle of the legal system is dangerous and foolhardy. How long will it be before 'victims' are asked to give their views on appropriate sentences ? How long before the evidence given by 'victims' is determined to be of greater weight than that of other witnesses ? 

People may not like some elements of the legal system but it is a system which has been developed over decades, even centuries, and which separates victim and prosecution, accused and defence, jury and judge; all four elements have their part to play and those parts should not be confused or muddles together. In like fashion, the Parole Board has its job to do; the potential parolee has representation and various others can be called to give evidence. Once that evidence has been heard, it is for the Board, as judge, to make a determination. If there are legal grounds for challenging that determination, there is a process to allow this, but, as in court, there can be no automatic right for 'victims' to be given a special say, in this case via a direct appeal to the Secretary of State, simply because they don't like the decision. In fact, this proposal risks turning the eventual granting of parole into a political rather than a judicial matter, which cannot possibly be right.

Knee-jerk legislation by governments is rarely a good idea, and this certainly isn't.