Taxi driver’s ‘improper clothing’ case thrown out
A taxi driver accused of wearing “improper” clothing while on the job saw his case thrown out by a magistrate.Clyde Holder, 55, faced a charge at Magistrates’ Court of being improperly dressed. According to prosecutor Carrington Mahoney, the only information available on court papers alleged that Mr Holder had been found “improperly dressed, smoking, etc”.Mr Mahoney admitted he had “never heard of” such a charge before.Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner then noticed that the date of the offence was listed on court papers as being October 2001, which appeared to be incorrect.The charge had actually been issued against Mr Holder in October 2010, noted the magistrate.Mr Mahoney noted that while the taxi regulations specify drivers must be properly dressed as part of their job, he did not realise such cases came to Magistrates’ Court.After inquiring with a police officer in court whether Transport Control Department clerks could issue such tickets, Mr Warner said he would dismiss the matter.“I don’t know what’s going on between you and TCD,” he remarked.Mr Holder pointed out that the magistrate had already thrown the case out on a previous occasion, yet a warrant remained out for his arrest. Mr Warner reassured him that the charge had been fully dismissed and the warrant cancelled.Taxi regulations, which date from 1952, state that taxi drivers must be “polite and respectful in conduct, be neat and clean in appearance and be correctly dressed” at the wheel.They must wear a shirt or blouse with collar and sleeves “made of closely woven material” and are not supposed to wear flip flops, clogs or sandals.The regulations further state that “only head gear with a brim or peak may be worn”, and “articles of dress made of dungarees or denim or which are multicoloured may not be worn”.Meanwhile, the regulations also warn that “a driver shall not be deemed to be neat and clean in appearance if his hair is braided or, in the case of a women driver, if curlers or rollers are worn in the hair”.It was not specified in the charge against Mr Holder how he was alleged to have been improperly dressed.