Bradford Taxi Firm Shut Down After Drug Raid at Office

The operator of a private hire company based in a Victorian railway station has lost his licence following allegations that Class A drug dealing took place at his business premises. Bradford Magistrates Court ruled that Akmal Sakander, the operator of Central Private Hire in Keighley Rail Station, was not a "fit and proper person" to run a private hire business. The court heard that heroin, cocaine, and crack cocaine were allegedly sold within the office, leading to the decision to revoke his licence.

Bradford Council argued that Sakander, despite claiming he had no knowledge of the drug activity, was ultimately responsible for ensuring that his business operated lawfully. The council maintained that his ignorance of criminal activity within his own company demonstrated a failure in oversight, making him unsuitable to continue operating a taxi firm.

The case raises concerns about the regulation of private hire companies and the responsibilities of operators in maintaining a lawful business environment. Authorities stress that taxi firms play a crucial role in public transport and community safety, making it essential for operators to be vigilant about any illegal activities occurring within their premises.

Police Investigation and Raid

The case against Central Private Hire began with a police investigation into drug supply in Keighley. Undercover officers reportedly purchased Class A drugs from an individual inside the private hire office. This led to a police raid on the premises in April, during which evidence of drug transactions was allegedly discovered.

The private hire office, located within Keighley Rail Station, is in close proximity to Keighley College and the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway, a popular tourist attraction in Yorkshire. The presence of a business allegedly involved in drug-related activities in such a central and public location raised further concerns about the safety of the surrounding community.

Following the raid, a person associated with the taxi office was charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Although Sakander was not personally accused of drug dealing, the presence of illegal activity within his business became central to the case against him. Authorities argued that as the person in charge, he had a legal duty to ensure that his premises were not being used for criminal purposes.

Court Proceedings and Evidence

During the court hearing, Sakander maintained that he was unaware of any criminal activity taking place within his office. However, Bradford Council contended that his lack of awareness demonstrated poor management and a failure to uphold the legal responsibilities of a business operator.

Sam Fowles, representing Bradford Council, challenged Sakander’s claims:

"You say you didn’t know drugs were being sold on the premises? That it is unfair to punish you for the behaviour of others? You don’t think you’re responsible for (someone) selling drugs from the premises? You have no responsibility whatsoever?"

Sakander responded:

"Correct."

Fowles continued:

"Your premises had been raided by police and a person arrested for dealing drugs on the premises. When you were invited to speak to the Council, was it beyond your ability to guess it would be about drug dealing on your premises? You are the person with ultimate control, ultimate responsibility for ensuring the premises is being operated lawfully. During that period, there was heroin, cocaine and crack being dealt from the premises. That is a massive failure on your part isn’t it?"

Sakander answered:

"Not if I didn’t know about it."

Magistrates were presented with CCTV footage that allegedly showed drug transactions taking place within the office. While Sakander argued that he monitored his business remotely via CCTV and was unable to identify illicit activity, Detective Sergeant Neil Kelman of West Yorkshire Police testified that the footage clearly depicted a drug deal.

DS Kelman stated:

"I’d expect that the exchange of a block of white substance for a large amount of cash would be recognised."

Sakander’s defence lawyer, Mr Ahmed, suggested that a layperson might not be able to interpret such footage in the same way as a trained police officer. He questioned whether it was reasonable to expect his client to recognize drug transactions simply from CCTV images. However, the prosecution maintained that as the owner of the business, Sakander had a duty to be aware of what was happening on his premises.

Bradford Council’s Stance and Final Verdict

The council emphasized that Sakander’s refusal to accept responsibility for the events in his business was a key reason for revoking his licence. The licensing authority initially stripped him of his operator’s licence in May, citing the presence of drug-related crime at his premises as evidence of his failure to maintain lawful operations.

During the appeal hearing, Fowles summarized the council’s position:

"The Council revoked his licence because on his watch his premises were being used to deal in illegal drugs. The applicant has done nothing to prevent that state of affairs. As someone that allows their premises to be used for drug dealing and, in his own evidence, had no idea what was going on, is he really a suitable person to be trusted with a licence to operate a taxi firm? The refusal to accept responsibility is the basis for this applicant’s case."

Sakander, who had operated the taxi company for over 20 years without any prior legal issues, insisted that he was being unfairly punished for the actions of others. He also worked full-time at a nearby business, Pennine Electrics, and ran a kitchen company, which he argued limited his ability to oversee day-to-day operations at the cab office.

However, the court ruled that this did not absolve him of his responsibility as an operator. The magistrates determined that he had ultimate control over the business and was responsible for ensuring its compliance with the law.

After deliberation, magistrates upheld the council’s decision to revoke Sakander’s licence. Mrs. Coward, chair of the bench, announced the ruling:

"You agree you had no knowledge of what was happening on the premises. You are not a fit and proper person to operate a business like this."

As a result of the ruling, Sakander was ordered to pay £5,890 in legal costs. When visited on Thursday evening, the Central Private Hire office was closed, with a sign on the door stating: "Office closed."

The case highlights the serious consequences business owners may face if criminal activities take place under their management, regardless of whether they are directly involved. Authorities have reiterated the importance of vigilance and strict oversight in the private hire sector to ensure public safety and compliance with the law.