A taxi driver has been fined £500 for threatening behaviour after a row at the airport.

Peter Michael Birchall caused his victim to jump out of the way as he drove past him after they had argued over the man taking a photograph of a taxi.

The 52-year-old cabbie admitted threatening behaviour, which replaced an initial charge of provoking behaviour, and was also ordered to pay £50 prosecution costs.

Prosecuting advocate Rebecca Cubbon told the court that Birchall was at the airport on July 1 at 8.30pm.

The complainant was taking a photo of a taxi when Birchall approached and asked: ’Why are you taking a photo?’

He told Birchall that he didn’t have to tell him why and the cabbie was then said to have become aggressive.

The pair argued and Birchall got into his taxi but the victim then tried to take a picture of Birchall in his cab.

Birchall was said to have moved his car towards the victim, who said that he thought he was bluffing, but then kept moving towards him until he jumped onto the pavement to get out of the way.

The man reported the matter to airport security saying he believed Birchall had been trying to scare him.

Birchall, who lives in Richmond Close, Douglas, attended a voluntary interview at police headquarters and claimed that it was the complainant who had been aggressive.

He claimed he had not driven at the man and had just wanted to get away from the scene.

However, Ms Cubbon said that Birchall had now accepted that he had driven forwards to scare the complainant.

Defence advocate Peter Russell said: ’This was an unfortunate incident. Mr Birchall is a taxi driver and was concerned why the complainant was taking photos of a colleague’s taxi. His response did little to take the heat out of the situation.

’He drove away in haste, in an attempt to prevent the photo being taken.

’He accepts his manner of driving would have alarmed the complainant.’

Mr Russell asked for his client to be given three months to pay any fine and costs.

High Bailiff Jayne Hughes said that the offence was committed while Birchall was subject to a suspended sentence, but as it was a non-imprisonable offence, it did not put him in breach of that sentence.

The High Bailiff told Birchall: ’There was no explanation why the other party decided to take photos but your behaviour in response was inappropriate.

’You could have handled the situation better and you’re before the court because of it.’

Birchall was given until April 12 to pay the fine and costs.