Magistrates say that Akumal Sakander, a central private rental operator based at Kaylee Railway Station, was asked to conduct private employment operations when heroin, cocaine and crack were heard during a hearing at Bradford Magistrates Court. We decided that we were not the “appropriate and right person” to run the program. “Under his nose” is being addressed.
Mr. Sakander admitted that the drugs were handled at private recruitment offices, but he insisted he didn't know that it was happening.
However, Bradford Council argued that his ignorance of crime in his own business was evidence that in itself was inappropriate to run a taxi company.
The Private Employment Office is based in units at Kaylee Railway Station and is just yards from Caylee College and the Caylee and Worth Valley Railway, one of Yorkshire's most popular tourist attractions.
The office was attacked by police last April while investigating Kayley's drug supply.
The attack followed an operation in which undercover agents allegedly dealt with cocaine, heroin and crack cocaine by individuals in the company's office.
The individual is then charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
Sakander was stripped of his license by the Bradford Council in May. Authorities alleged that the crime took place on the property he was in charge of, evidence that he was not a suitable and appropriate person to hold the operator's license.
Mr. Sakander appealed the decision, which was heard Thursday.
During the appeal, he was allegedly not believed that drug trade was taking place on the premises and was argued that he should be allowed to continue running the business.
However, Bradford Council argued that his inability to accept this responsibility only proved that he was not worthy of running a private employment company.
The court heard that Sakander has run Cab Company for more than 20 years, working full-time at nearby business Peninen Electric and runs a kitchen company.
The magistrate was told that there was no problem with the police in the long run when he carried out private central employment.
Mr. Sakander spent most of his work on other jobs, but he could access the company's CCTV on his phone, and in court, he would immediately return to the office if any issues arise. I said I could do it.
When he was asked to meet with a license officer a few weeks after the attack, Sakander said he was shocked by the line of questions he compared to “interrogation.”
Mr Ahmed, representing Mr Sakander, asked, “Did you have no knowledge of the activities that took place there before you were interviewed?”
He replied: “right.”
Sam Fouls, who represents Bradford Council, said: Is it unfair to punish you for someone else's actions? Don't you think (someone) is responsible for selling drugs from within the property? Are you not responsible at all? ”
Mr. Sakander replied: “That's right.”
“Your facility handled drugs on the police and the premises, referring to allegations that his interview with the council was shocked to be asked about his business dealings. Assaulted by someone arrested as. When you were invited to talk to the council, was it beyond your ability to speculate that it was about drug trafficking on your premises?
“You are the ultimate control person and the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the facility is legally operated.
“Through that period, heroin, cocaine and cracks were handed out by the facility. That's a big mistake on your part.”
Sakander replied: “Even if I didn't know about it.”
Fowles replied: “It was happening under your nose. You don't think it's happening despite your business responsibility.
“If you knew about it, do you just think it's a mistake on your part?”
Sakander said: “How should you know someone is doing that? How are you supposed to know that there is a drug deal on my property?”
Mr. Fouls replied: “Is that evidence for you?”
Mr. Sakander replied: “Yes.”
The magistrate was shown with images of suspected drug trafficking, filmed on the company's CCTV.
Fouls said, referring to the appellant's claim that CCTV can be monitored from the business while he does other work: We've seen images of suspected drugs on your property, but you did nothing about it. ”
Sakander saw the images moving on his phone so it was difficult to tell them what was going on inside them.
Detective Sergeant Neil Kelman of West Yorkshire Police presented evidence at the hearing. He said CCTV appears to indicate that there is a cocaine trade going on.
Ahmed suggested that veteran police officers may be aware of the drug deal, but his clients may not. He said: “Is it fair to say that we may not be able to guess what this image shows?”
DS Kelman replied, “I think it's obvious that you'll be able to exchange blocks of white matter for a large amount of cash.”
In summary, Fouls said:
“The applicant has done nothing to prevent the situation.
“As someone who allows the facility to be used for drug trade, and in his own evidence, he was really a good person to trust a license to run a taxi company. Is it?
“Refusal to accept liability is the basis of this applicant's lawsuit.”
After a brief deliberation magistrate decided, the council made the right decision to strip Mr Sakander of his license and dismissed the appeal.
Mrs. Coward, chairman of the bench, said: You are not the right person to run a business like this. ”
He was ordered to pay £5,890.
When Telegraph & Argus visited the private employment office Thursday evening, the building was closed and a sign on the door said “the office has been closed.”
