To consider
an application by Mr A
(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
• That the public are
safeguarded from dishonest persons
• Children and young people
are protected
• Vulnerable persons are
protected
• The public have
confidence in their use of licensed vehicles.
The Licensing Manager presented a written report on
the application received from Mr A. for a 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 noted that he was a lorry driver and that
he had made one serious error when he decided to drive under the influence of
alcohol following a night out with friends.
He openly admitted that this was a foolish decision and the
rehabilitation course had been invaluable.
In reply to a question, he stated that if the licence should be approved
then he would be self-employed.
The applicant withdrew from the room whilst the Sub-committee members
discussed the application.
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 Vehicles'
• the
applicant's application form
• verbal observations presented by the applicant during the hearing
• the Licensing Department's report along with the DBS statement disclosing
the convictions
Specific consideration was given to the following
matters.
The applicant had received a conviction from Bangor
Magistrates' Court (November 1995) on one charge of trying to obtain property
by deception, contrary to the Theft Act 1968, section 15. He received a fine of £60.00. The applicant
received a conviction from Bangor Magistrates' Court (February 1989) for two
offences of criminal damage. He received
an order to pay compensation of £220.00. The applicant received a conviction
from Gwynedd Magistrates' Court (December 2014) on one charge of failing to
provide a specimen for analysis, contrary to section 7 (6) of the Road Traffic
Act 1988. He was banned from driving for 12 months, with a reduction of 3
months following the rehabilitation course.
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 permanently barred from obtaining
a licence, but should be expected to be free from conviction for an appropriate
period as stated in the Policy, and to show evidence that he 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) 2002 Order allowed the Sub-committee to consider all the
convictions recorded if they had been spent or otherwise under the 1974 Act.
Paragraph 6.5 of
the policy was considered, which states that an application will be refused if
the applicant had a conviction of a violent nature during the last three
years. It was noted that such offences
included criminal damage. Paragraph 8.2
was considered, which states that an application will be refused if the applicant
has a conviction during the last three years for a dishonesty offence (this
includes trying to obtain property by deception). Paragraph 12.9 was considered, this states
that an application will usually be refused if there is a recent conviction
against the applicant that led to a ban of 12 months or more, unless a period
of at least 18 has elapsed since the end of the ban.
It was accepted that the 1985 conviction included an offence of dishonesty,
however, as this had occurred 32 years ago (over 3 years ago) the Sub-committee
was of the view that the offence was not a reason to refuse. It was accepted that the 1989 conviction
included violent crimes that occurred 29 years ago. This was not a reason to refuse the
application. Following the 2014
conviction the applicant was banned from driving. The Sub-committee calculated that the ban had
ended on 31 August 2015 (9 months after 1 December 2014), and this meant that
over 12 months had elapsed since the ban.
The Solicitor reported that
the decision would be confirmed formally by letter sent to the applicant with
details of his right to appeal.