The officer in the Taxi Services Commission’s investigation into Uber has come under fire on the second day of the trial aimed at outlawing the ride sharing app.
Yesterday, City Journal reported compliance officer David Morris took personal rides using the Uber app as part of his investigation.
This morning Barrister Peter Haag, who is representing music manager and driver Nathan Brenner on three charges of operating a commercial vehicle without authorisation, continued his cross-examination.
“You are deliberately misconstruing the meaning of ‘inspection’ because you know you didn’t comply with the law.” – Barrister Peter Haag to David Morris
Mr Haag suggested Mr Morris had acted outside of the powers his position granted him.
Mr Haag questioned whether Mr Morris underwent training informing him of his powers as compliance officer prior to taking a ride in an Uber car in August 2014. Morris said he hadn’t, admitting he only received such training at the start of this year.
“So you were not acting under specific powers given to you (in taking the ride) but just following an instinct?” he asked. Mr Hagg also questioned why Mr Morris established the owner – music manager Nathan Brenner – and validity of the car only after taking the ride, when this information was already available online.
The proceedings reached their climax when Mr Haag accused Mr Morris of “purposely avoiding questions”, and “deliberately misconstruing meaning … because you know you didn’t comply with the law”.
Justice Julian Ayres summed up the defence’s approach at the start of the day: “You’ll contend a lot of what’s been done was inappropriate, so the information gathered should effectively be removed as evidence.” The removal of Mr Morris’ evidence would likely weaken the Commission’s case against Mr Brenner and Uber in Victoria.
The trial’s second day opened with lawyers representing the Commission laying out the legal boundaries of the case. “This is not a difficult case: commercial passenger vehicles that are not accredited are breaking the law, whether using Uber or any other service,” one lawyer began.
Uber was founded in America in 2009, and has since spread to more than 50 countries and 300 cities worldwide.
It is currently considered illegal in Victoria, and this case could greatly restrict or outlaw Uber completely in the state if resolved in favor of the Taxi Services Commission.
“This is not a difficult case: commercial passenger vehicles that are not accredited are breaking the law, whether using Uber or any other service.” – A lawyer representing the TSC.
City Journal asked a known Uber driver whether Uber being officially outlawed would compel them to leave the service. They declined to comment.
The trial in Melbourne is just one struggle of many between Uber and local politics currently in full swing across Australia.
Queensland Premier Anastacia Palaszczuk called for a “national approach” to Uber this morning, also suggesting the service could co-exist with taxis in her state.
Meanwhile, Uber has ramped up its media war against the Australian Tax Office in the lead up to August 1, when all Australian Uber drivers will have to register for GST, which could see ride prices jump by 10 per cent.
