To consider an application by Mr B
(separate copy for sub-committee members only)
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. He highlighted that the
decision would be made in accordance with Gwynedd Council's licensing
policy. It was noted that the purpose of
the policy was to set guidelines for the criteria when considering the
applicant's application and the aim was to protect the public by ensuring that:
·
A person is a fit and
proper person
·
The person does not pose a
threat to the public
·
The public are safeguarded
from dishonest persons
·
The safeguarding of children
and young people
·
The safeguarding of
vulnerable persons
·
The public have confidence
in their use of licensed vehicles.
The Licensing Manager submitted the written report on the application
received from Mr B for a new hackney/private hire driver’s licence. The
Sub-committee was requested to consider the application in accordance with the
DBS record, and the guidelines on relevant criminal offences and convictions.
The applicant was
invited to expand on the application and provide information about the
background of the offences. He
highlighted that they were historical offences that had occurred when he was a
teenager. He admitted that he had done
foolish things. By now he did voluntary
work in the community and his neighbour highlighted that the offences were not
a reflection of his character now.
RESOLVED that the applicant
was a fit and proper person to be issued
with a hackney vehicle/private hire driver's licence from Gwynedd Council.
In reaching their decision, the Sub-committee considered the following:
·
the requirements of the 'Gwynedd Council's
Licensing Policy for Hackney
Carriages and Private Hire'
·
the applicant's application form
·
verbal
observations presented by the applicant
and his neighbour during the hearing
·
the Licensing Department's report along with the DBS statement that disclosed convictions
Specific consideration was given to the following matters.
The
applicant received a conviction from Leek Magistrates' Court (May 1988) for a charge of stealing a vehicle and three
minor traffic offences. As
a result he received a fine of £260.00 and an order
to pay costs of £30.00, and was banned from driving for 6 months.
The applicant received a conviction from Leek Magistrates' Court (November 1988) for a charge of taking a vehicle without authority, whilst he was banned from driving, driving
without insurance and driving a vehicle
under the influence of
alcohol. The applicant received
a conviction from Leek Magistrates' Court (March 1989) for two offences of criminal damage. He received a probation order for 2 years and
an order to pay damages of £111.00. The applicant received a conviction from East Dorset
Magistrates' Court for driving a vehicle
under the influence of
alcohol. He received a fine
of £200.00, an order to pay costs of £55.00, and was banned from driving for 3 years.
He received a conviction from East Dorset
Magistrates' Court (February 2002) for being drunk and
disorderly. He
was given a conditional discharge of 6 months and an order
to pay costs of £55.00.
Paragraph 2.2 of
the Council's Policy was considered, this states that a person with a
conviction for a serious offence need not be automatically barred from
obtaining a licence, but would normally be expected to remain free of
conviction for an appropriate period as stated in the Policy, and to show
evidence that he or she was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
It was highlighted that
paragraph 4.5 of the Council
policy stated that a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002 allowed the Sub-committee to take into account
all convictions recorded against an applicant,
whether spent or not.
Furthermore, paragraph 6.6 of the policy
was considered, which states that an
application will normally be refused if an applicant
has more than one conviction in the last 10 years for
an offence of a violent nature. Paragraph 8.2 was considered, which states that an
application will normally be refused where the applicant has a conviction that is less than 3 years prior to the date of the application for a dishonesty offence (this includes theft). Paragraph 11.2 was considered, this notes that applicants
with more than one conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol are unlikely to be granted a licence unless a period of 10 years has elapsed after
the restoration of the licence
following the last conviction.
Paragraph 12.4 was considered,
this states that an applicant
with more than one major traffic offence,
within the last 5 years will normally
be refused and no further application
should be considered until a period of at least 3 years free
from such convictions have elapsed. It was noted that such offences
included driving without insurance and driving while
disqualified.
Paragraph 12.10 was considered,
this states that an application
will normally be refused where the applicant has a recent conviction resulting in a period of disqualification of up to 12 months or more, unless a period of at least 18 months has elapsed from
the end of the disqualification
period.
Although there was evidence of re-offending, offences of a violent nature (1989 - criminal damage and 2002 - drunk and disorderly),
the Sub-committee was of the opinion
that these offences were not a reason to refuse the licence as they were historical convictions (over 10 years old). With further evidence of re-offending for offences of dishonesty (1988 - theft of a vehicle without authority) the Sub-committee found that these were
over three years old and
therefore there was no reason for
refusing the application. There was also evidence of re-offending of motoring offences (1988 - minor traffic offences, driving without insurance and driving
when disqualified), however as these were convictions that were over
five years old, the Sub-committee's view was that these
offences were not a reason to refuse the application. With evidence of re-offending in relation to drink driving in 1989 and 2001, that led to being banned from driving, it was considered that both convictions
were more than 10 years old and therefore
as a period of 18 months
had elapsed since the last period had ended, the Sub-committee was of
the opinion that these offences were not a reason to refuse the application.
The Sub-committee noted that the applicant has not received any convictions since 2002 and had kept a clean slate
for 16 years. In addition, observations were received from
his neighbour who applauded him for
undertaking voluntary work within the community.
The Solicitor reported that the decision would be confirmed
formally by letter sent to
the applicant with details of his right to appeal.