Taxi driver taking E&I boss to court

Mr Pontin was taken off the roads for three months in March and fined by the Magistrate’s Court after he was caught speeding.

He argues in his Royal Court appeal that he was being punished twice for the same incident and it was unfair to take away his livelihood and means of supporting his family.

He said other taxi drivers had done worse things but were allowed to keep their permits, and he felt that his ‘face did not fit’ with the Environment & Infrastructure Committee, of which Deputy Brehaut is president.

Mr Pontin said he was an ‘idiot’ for driving at 60mph along the 35mph Portinfer Road, but said he had no passengers on board and was not operating as a taxi driver at the time.

The Magistrate’s Court fined Mr Pontin £350 and banned him from driving for three months for the speeding offence.

Then in April, Environment & Infrastructure sent Mr Pontin a letter saying that it was imposing a fresh suspension of his public service vehicle permit for six months following the speeding offence.

Mr Pontin said that this was double jeopardy and that the committee was acting unreasonably.

He has lodged an appeal in the Royal Court against the Environment & Infrastructure president Deputy Barry Brehaut, and Judge Russell Finch is deciding whether or not to give leave to appeal.

Advocate Jason Hill, representing Deputy Brehaut, is opposing the action and wants the matter dismissed because of a point of law.

Firstly Advocate Hill said there was a strict time limit on making these appeals and there was little power or discretion to extend the time limit unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Under the ordinance of appeals, people only have 30 days to appeal to the Royal Court and by Advocate Hill’s calculations the appeal window had closed on Mr Pontin and he was at least 23 days late.

Secondly Advocate Hill argued that the Magistrate’s Court and the Committee for the Environment & Infrastructure had very different functions and purposes and the committee was operating within its remit to impose a six month license suspension.

In response Mr Pontin said that he started his appeal within 26 days of the letter and that he was acting without an advocate and it was a complicated process for an ordinary person without legal training to understand.

He said he did not know that the appeal summons had to be signed and presented within 30 days.

Judge Finch said that he would carefully consider whether Mr Pontin should be allowed to proceed with his appeal, and his decision would be emailed out to the appellant and respondent in a few days time.