Intrepid Melbourne Share Driver Reports on TSC vs Nathan Brenner Case
Introducing UberPlates, one Melbourne share driver who has sacrificed income and time to attend most of the hearings of TSC vs Nathan Brenner test case. Here Uberplates presents a court insiders view (from a lay-persons perspective he insists). SDA commends UberPlates on his outstanding efforts in supporting Nathan Brenner and in reporting back his insights on uberpeople.net
His most recent updates presented first, UberPlates reported as follows:
06/08/15
The hearing continued yesterday, but it was really all over before lunch, so people didn't miss that much. The point was again put re Nathan having been detained unnecessarily during the incident. Then the matter of the reversed credit card payment was raised, along with the fact that Nathan was not being paid by the rider, but by Uber (I think that was the point). Also, Nathan didn't actually receive any cash from the TSC inspectors, no money actually changed hands. Whilst dealing with the matter, and organising a timeline for each of the written and oral submission deadlines, the magistrate did seem to bring up the whole issue of whether the officers were indeed authorised to lay the charges which they did. He said that if it was found that the officers did NOT have those powers, and had implementing without the proper authority, then everything else regarding the case might become a mute point, and the matter would end right there. At least I think that was the message he was conveying. It was hardly controversial, both sides acknowledged the statement. I'm not sure if I will attend the various court sessions booked in for the next month. I will try to, but it may not be possible. It's been quite interesting at times, I especially like the lack of aggro for the most part. I'm less fond of how long everything seems to take, but I guess that's normal for these things. I'm happy to say I've never had to experience any of this. One date for Melbourne folk to note down is September 11. There's every chance that the matter will be decided then (I think). It's scheduled for a 2pm session. The result may have implications for all of us drivers. Anyway, stay tuned. Yeah, I know my posts have lots of qualifications, but the last thing I want to do is mis-represent the things I've seen at the hearing. I have no legal background. I don't want to get in strife. Besides, each side is free to speak on it all, they don't need me doing it for them. I'll just be biased anyway. So everyone should treat my posts as internet forum chat, and not much more. No matter what, I don't think Uber drivers deserve receiving convictions over these matters. It's too harsh. There, I said it.
31/07/15
Further to my last post, the hearing continued, with the Defence counsel questioning the validity and admissibility of the TSC evidence. Issues touched on the particular powers that TSC officers actually have in relation to questioning drivers. Also, there was an issue with the particular credit card being used being stated incorrectly. Issues were raised as to whether Nathan had perhaps been given the impression that he was being detained unnecessarily, after all relevant facts had been established. And there was the interesting fact that the TSC on the witness stand had used UberX in a private capacity. Arguments were raised as to whether this could be treated in part as the officer investigating how Uber operates, both in jurisdictions where it is permitted and ones where it is being contested. After the Defence were finished cross-examining this witness, a fellow TSC was also called to testify. He gave his account of the incident, and then the Defence went about asking similar questions of him, in order to see if his evidence did indeed concur with that of his colleague. I think the Defence will assert that the TSC operation was not carried in the right manner. It will be interesting to see where this will all go. Interesting to note the dropping of charges in NSW, but this might play no bearing here in Victoria. Different jurisdiction, different rules and regulations...
29/07/15
I was going to write something here yesterday, but when I got home, I was stuffed from the 2 hour walk I chose to take Yep, I really am that nuts people... actually I do my best thinking when I'm walking... anyhoo, I got home late, fired up the iPad, surfed a few UP posts and flaked out... I'm awake now, and typing this on my desktop, like sane people do. What happened yesterday? They ran through the events of the case. Related to a car trip from East Melbourne to South Yarra. Ultimately this matter will be up to the magistrate to make a ruling on. I don't want to offer an opinion on it all here, except to point that mobile phone screenshots, audio recordings, and database searches were all brought up as evidence. Or maybe I should say 'exhibits'. I'm no lawyer. Note I said 'audio recordings' ... this is a relatively new thing that that enforcement/compliance officers have at their disposal. Police, PTOs, and potentially every officer in authority that you might come across. So, what I'm hinting at is, in the event that you should ever get nabbed for something like this, or anything else, watch your Ps & Qs! The whole courtroom gets to listen in... It's okay, you didn't miss anything, there was nothing controversial in this instance... but if you should happen to step out at night, and enjoy a few too many soups along the way, just hold your tongue in front of the law. Because what you say might come back and paint you in an unfavourable light. Are ya with me? STAY OFF THE SAUCE WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING PEOPLE! ...as if I had to tell anyone that...
