To consider an application by Mr B
(separate copy for sub-committee members only)
Minutes:
a)
The
Chair 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 with the aim of protecting the public by ensuring that:
• The
person is a fit and proper person
• The
person does not pose a threat to the public
• 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 Officer presented a written report on an application received
from Mr B for a hackney/private hire driver's
licence. The Sub-committee was
asked to consider the
application in accordance with the DBS record, and
the guidelines on relevant criminal
offences and convictions, and the report of the DVLA.
The applicant was invited to expand on his application and provide
information about the background to the offences and his personal circumstances.
He gave a full explanation
of the penalty points on his licence. His employer noted that the convictions in 1991 and
1998 had been given full consideration at a previous sub-committee, at which time the applicant's licence application had
been approved. He reiterated
that the applicant was a good driver and he praised his work.
The applicant and his employer withdrew from the room while the Sub-committee members discussed the application.
b)
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.
c)
In reaching its decision,
the Sub-committee considered
the following:
·
The requirements of the 'Gwynedd Council Licensing
Policy for Hackney Carriages
and Private Hire Vehicles'
·
the applicant's application form
·
verbal observations presented by the applicant during the hearing
·
verbal observations presented by the applicant's employer during the hearing
·
the Licensing Department's report along with the DBS statement and the applicant's driving licence
report provided by the DVLA.
The applicant was convicted by Mold Crown Court in April 1991 for causing injury to a person contrary to Section 47 of
the Offences Against the Person Act
1861. He received a community
order of 100 hours and was ordered to pay £100 in compensation and £124 in costs.
In October 1998 he was convicted at Bangor Magistrates Court of stealing from his employer contrary to the the Theft Act 1968. He received a £350 fine
and was ordered to pay £30 costs. In June 2015, Gwynedd Council claimed
that he had
operated as a hackney
driver without a current
licence (an offence that was contrary to section 47 of the
Town Police Clauses Act
1847). It was also claimed that he
did not have a reasonable
excuse for not presenting his
hackney carriage driver's licence when requested to do so by an authorised officer of the Council
(an offence contrary to
section 53 of the Local Government Act (Miscellaneous Provisions)
1976). The Licensing Unit made further
enquiries and the applicant
did not have a current driver's licence. Consequently,
the Council submitted a prosecution
against him at Caernarfon Magistrates Court. However, following concerns by
the defence about the acceptability of the prosecution's evidence, the Council
decided to withdraw its prosecution without going to trial.
In July 2016, the applicant
received six penalty points for an MS90 offence (failure to provide information about the identity
of a driver) - it was highlighted that these points would expire in July 2019.
In the Licensing Officer's
report, it noted that officers from
the Licensing Unit had suspected the applicant had continued to drive a taxi vehicle after
the date his licence expired
(6.3.19). Nevertheless, no details
of the incident (time, location, and a description of what
was seen) was not submitted.
ch) Paragraph 2.2 of the Council's Policy was
considered. This states that a person convicted of 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. The applicant has a responsibility to show
that he/she is a fit and proper person. Paragraph 2.3
of the Policy states that 'other matters for consideration' include, among
other things, fixed penalty notices, breach of licensing conditions, and
charges.
Paragraph 4.5 of the Council policy was considered
which stated that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions)
(Amendment) Order 2002 allowed the Sub-committee to take into account all
convictions, whether spent or otherwise under the 1974 Act.
Paragraph 6 of the Policy deals with offences of violence, and
paragraph 6.5 states that an application for a licence will normally be refused
if the applicant has a matter of common assault to be considered which occurred
less than three years before the application date. The paragraph lists offences
including, among others, assault that causes Actual Bodily Harm.
Paragraph 8 of the Policy
deals with offences of dishonesty and paragraph 8.2 states that an application
for a licence will normally be refused if the applicant has a matter to be
considered (including warnings) for common assault that took place less than
three years prior to the date of application.
The paragraph lists amongst other matters offences relating to theft.
Consideration was given
to paragraph 12.2 which listed serious traffic
offences for the purposes of the Policy. Among
these offences, MS90 - failure to provide information about the identity of a
driver, is included. Paragraph 12.3 of the policy notes that an application will usually be refused where the applicant has a conviction
for a major traffic offence and has not been free of the conviction for at least
6 months
Paragraph 16.1 of the Council's policy deals with repeat offending. It was necessary to ensure that the
convictions satisfied the individual policy guidelines, but that they together
created a history of repeat offending that indicated a lack of respect for the
welfare and property of others. The
policy states that 10 years must elapse since the most recent conviction.
Paragraph 17.0 of
the Policy relates to breaking the law, a bye-law or a licensing condition, and
Paragraph 17.1 of the Policy states, if convicted of an offence, that an
applicant would unlikely be granted a licence unless a period of 12 months had
elapsed since the most recent conviction.
Condition 6 of the hackney and private hire car driver licence was
considered, which notes that drivers are required to inform the Licensing
Authority about any conviction under traffic legislation. If a breach
was found, paragraph 17.1 of the Policy could apply, in which it is outlined
that it is unlikely that an application would be approved unless a 12 month period had elapsed since the most recent breach.
d)
The Sub-committee considered the following matters specifically -
It was considered that the 1991 conviction was
in relation to a violent offence. As the conviction had taken place 28 years
ago, the Sub-committee was satisfied that this conviction should not be a
reason for refusing the application. The decision was
the same for the 1998 conviction relating to dishonesty. This offence was also
historical and in accordance with paragraph 8.2 of the
policy there were no grounds to refuse the application.
After further discussion about the incident in June 2015, the Solicitor
explained that the applicant had been found not guilty of
these alleged offences by Caernarfon Magistrates Court. It was
reiterated that the applicant, following the prosecution, had gone before the
Sub-committee in March 2016 and that the Sub-committee, on that occasion, had
approved the licence, ignoring the incident as he had been found not guilty.
The incident was not considered for the purpose of
this application either.
In considering the driving points
accummulated in 2016, they were considered to be
serious motoring offences. But, as there was no
evidence that the applicant had been convicted as a result of these offences,
the sub-committee was not satisfied that condition 6 had been breached. The
points on the driving licence had accumulated over two years ago. Therefore,
paragraph 12.3 should not be considered grounds for
refusing the application.
In considering the licensing officers' suspicion that the applicant had
driven a taxi without a licence, the solicitor advised that a general suspicion
was not sufficient under the policy - evidence of an individual incident had to
be presented where breach of a specific legislation
had been identified. Consequently, the incident was
disregarded.
Although each conviction had been considered
independently, the sub-committee had to consider them collectively, under
paragraph 16.1. The Sub-committee concluded that, collectively, the 1991 and
1998 convictions did not show a history of repeat offending that indicated a
lack of respect for the welfare and property of others. However, since the most
recent conviction had occurred over 10 years ago, paragraph 16.1 would not be
relevant.
Under the
circumstances, the Sub-committee was satisfied that the applicant was a fit and
proper person to hold a hackney vehicle/private hire driver's licence.
The Solicitor reported that the decision would be confirmed
formally by a letter sent
to the applicant and that
the Licensing Unit would be in contact to confirm the
licence documentation.