Rogue taxi driver should face full extent of the law

Jamoy Pusey, the taxi driver who held passengers against their will while he carelessly drove to evade the cops, should be charged for kidnapping. The viral video shows passengers begging for him to stop which is enough evidence to show that they were being held against their will.

Kidnapping charge apt in taxi case?

5 Feb 2022

PUBLIC OUTRAGE that Jamoy Pusey, the rogue taxi driver, who, with a car full of passengers, took the police on a wild chase through the Corporate Area on Monday, received station bail, is quite understandable. Anger over the callousness of the offence itself is exacerbated by the disclosure that Mr Pusey had nearly a score of outstanding traffic tickets.

The quite obvious question now is: Why, given the unpaid tickets, and the matters apparently not resolved in court, didn’t the police detain Mr Pusey for those offences? The public’s presumption is that there are bench warrants issued by parish judges, for his arrest.

The police, unfortunately, haven’t indicated whether the matters had indeed come to court, whether Mr Pusey turned up for the hearings and what were the rulings of the presiding parish judges. At the time of Mr Pusey’s arrest and bail, they mightn’t have had this information readily available. Apparently, all officers don’t yet have access to the central database for traffic tickets, and only few can, as yet, log into the system remotely. This is work in progress for the police.

But perhaps the more pertinent questions should be about the charges that Mr Pusey ought to face for Monday’s affair, taking into account the egregious nature of the event. It seems that Mr Pusey, who, apparently, was without the appropriate licences to operate a taxi, was accosted by the police. Rather than following their instructions, he sped off at high speed. The police gave chase.

In a video, obviously taken from inside Mr Pusey’s vehicle, frightened passengers can be heard pleading for the driver to stop and let them out. He sped on. The pleas became more desperate when gunshots were heard. These were claimed to have been fired by the police. That matter is under investigation by the oversight body, the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM), to determine whether the shooting breached the constabulary’s use-offorce policy.

ENDANGERED LIVES

The video evidence suggests that Mr Pusey’s driving endangered the lives of other motorists as well as pedestrians. Indeed, the police claim that a motorcyclist was knocked from his bike, presumably by Mr Pusey’s vehicle, and that other vehicles were damaged.

Mr Pusey will likely face a primary charge of reckless and dangerous driving under Section 27 of the existing Road Traffic Act. There will also be whatever else the police may be able to throw at him for other road offences committed during the chase. He could also face charges relating to the operation of an illegal taxi.

The offence of dangerous driving is defined as driving “a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition, and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road”. Should Mr Pusey be convicted for this offence, and it was his first such conviction, he would face a penalty “not exceeding $20,000, and, in default of payment, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months”.

If he is charged and found guilty of disobeying a lawful order of a constable under the Constabulary Force Act, he would be “liable to a penalty not exceeding four dollars, to be recovered summarily before a (parish judge)” and, in default of immediate payment, “to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding two months”.

Unless the posted video of the chase is entirely fake, these would be exceedingly mild sentences, given the nature of the offences. In fact, this newspaper does not believe that the likely charges under the Road Traffic Act do justice to the reported seven passengers in Mr Pusey’s vehicle. Based on the viral video, they went through 10 minutes of trauma and horror. They were being held against their will. They pleaded for their lives. `

TANTAMOUNT TO KIDNAPPING

Actions such as these give rise to more than reckless endangerment. They are tantamount to kidnapping. Which is why the authorities should seriously consider the likelihood of charging Mr Pusey under Section 70 of the Offences Against the Person Act, which deals with kidnapping. Kidnapping includes holding someone “against his will for ransom, whether by way of money or valuables or any promise to do or refrain from doing anything or any other consideration”. Given the prima facie evidence of the video that Mr Pusey’s passengers were being held against their will, a case centred on that bit of the law about refraining people from doing something, we feel, is arguable.

In any event, the new Road Traffic Act, which isn’t yet in force, should be amended to establish a specific offence akin to kidnapping when taxi operators drive off with passengers, in circumstances such as observed this week.

The 10-year sentence, as in the Offences Against the Person Act, would be applicable. In addition, the victims of that wild ride might also consider bringing civil cases against the taxi driver for unlawful imprisonment.

 

For feedback: contact the Editorial Department at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com.