I get a news feed sent to my phone every morning. It contains the legal issues of the day, everything from commercial and property stuff (too complicated), Brexit (too “oh god not again”) and updates on important cases (which saves me from having to read the actual case). I give it a perfunctory glance and then promptly forget about it. But not today. Because today’s feed contained this quite unbelievable story from The Times.

The article concerns something apparently mundane: an application to Dundee City Council for a taxi driver’s licence. Any individual seeking such a licence has to, quite properly, pass a “fit and proper person” test. Police Scotland are entitled to object to any application. They do so in the form of a letter to the Council setting out their grounds for opposition. This is usually on the basis of previous convictions and sometimes on the basis of fixed penalties for minor contraventions of road traffic legislation.

Dundee City Council

On this occasion there was reference to 3 minor convictions, all in excess of 7 years old. A bit harsh, maybe, but not improper. However the letter also made reference to an allegation of assault to serious injury and permanent disfigurement. Now this is a very serious charge but the applicant was acquitted of this charge by a jury of his peers. And as people in this country are innocent until proven guilty, this means the applicant is innocent in the eyes of the law. But not in the eyes of the moral guardians of Police Scotland. Here is what the letter said:


Police Service of Scotland is of the opinion the applicant is not a fit and proper person to be granted a taxi driver licence and objects to the granting of such a licence. It should be noted that the final charge [listed in the letter] of Assault to Severe Injury and Permanent Disfigurement has been disclosed on this occasion despite the applicant being found not proven for this.The reason for disclosure is that where not proven is the outcome in a case this shows the jury believed that the person in question is guilty of the offence, however there is an insufficiency of evidence to convict. It is the opinion of the Police Service of Scotland that this is pertinent to this application due to the serious nature of the offence and implication of guilty albeit without formal conviction.”

This is quite simply staggering. Lets leave aside the issue of how the police could possibly know the reasoning of the 15 ladies and gentlemen who acquitted the applicant. Lets leave aside how, short of illegally contacting members of the jury, they could possibly know they “believed him to be guilty”. What is most galling is that the police still refer to the “offence” supposedly committed. There was no offence. The accused was cleared by the jury.

A leading QC, Brian McConnachie, has accused the police of “ignorance and a quite staggering misunderstaning of the not proven verdict”. It is my opinion that Mr McConnachie may be giving Police Scotland too much credit. A more cynical view is that Police Scotland knows exactly what the Not Proven verdict means and simply sought to poison the minds of Dundee City Council against the applicant by providing deliberately erroneous information. History has proven that the police are not always above distorting the truth or planting evidence when they just know the accused is Guilty. Such deplorable conduct is mercifully rare and I do not suggest that the conduct here is comparable to that. But I cannot shake the suspicion that the motive is the same – the police just know the accused did it and are going to protect the public by ensuring he does not drive taxis.

Police Scotland claim that the letter was sent “in error”. If that is true, how did that “error” occur? We are not talking about a speliing error or a typo here. A alternative account could be that they have simply been caught out and are desperately backtracking.

Mr McConnachie wonders if this kind of thing is commonplace. I can only speak from my own experience. I recall representing one client accused of using his phone while driving and who had an ongoing application for renewal of his driving licence. He denied the offence. He was subsequently cleared of the offence when the case against him was deserted. In the interim, Police Scotland had opposed his application. The impression is that he was presumed Guilty by the police. The fact he was eventually cleared did not change the fact that the police had, in my opinion quite deliberately, poisoned the well. Cliches abound – “mud sticks”; “you can’t unring a bell”, “no smoke without fire”. I suspect that in this case – as in the current matter – police intentions may be good. They believe they need to protect the public. They need to ensure only fit and proper people drive our taxis and can’t details like “innocent until proven guilty” get in the way. But no matter how pure the motivation, did a wise man not once say the path to Hell is paved with good intentions?