Agenda item

To consider an application by Mr A

 

(separate copy for sub-committee members only)

 

a)    The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. She explained 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 using licensed vehicles.

 

The Licensing Officer presented a written report on an 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 his application and provide information about the background to the offences and his personal circumstances. He highlighted that the 1988 conviction was one that had occurred when he was in his teens and he had not been in any sort of trouble since. He added that the 1989 conviction was not relevant to him and he presented a letter from the Disclosure and Barring Service (dated 26.9.19) confirming this.  He also noted that an amended certificate would be sent to him.

 

The applicant withdrew from the room while members of the Sub-committee 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 '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

 

  ch)     The applicant was found guilty by Menai Bridge Magistrates' Court in September 1988 on two charges - one of assault causing bodily harm contrary to Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and one charge of affray contrary to Section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986. He received a fine of £400.00 and an order to pay costs of £47.00.

According to the applicant's DBS statement he had a conviction (March 1989) for three charges of shoplifting, contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.  However, he confirmed at the hearing that this record had been included in error and he presented a letter to the Sub-committee from the DBS confirming that the disclosure included an error.

 

   d)   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.  The applicant has a responsibility to show that he is a fit and proper person.

 

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 recorded against an applicant, whether spent or otherwise under the 1974 Act.

 

Paragraph 6 of the Policy addresses violent offences. Paragraph 6.1 states that licensed drivers have close regular contact with the public therefore the sub-committee should adopt a robust stance with those who have offences involving violence. Paragraph 6.2 states, that anyone who has been found guilty of violence-related offences is unlikely to receive a licence until they have been free from such a conviction(s) for at least three years.   Paragraph 6.5 of the Policy states that an application for a licence will usually be refused if the applicant has a matter to be considered for common assault that is less than three years prior to the date of application. The paragraph lists offences and common assault is included in the list.

 

Paragraph 8.0 of the Policy, which addresses dishonesty offences, was considered together with paragraph 8.1 that states that a serious view is taken of any conviction involving dishonesty.  Paragraph 8.2 notes that an application would normally be refused where the applicant/licence holder has a conviction(s) for an offence listed, and that the conviction was received less than three years prior to the date of application. It was noted that the list of offences included burglary, amongst other offences.

 

Paragraph 16.1 of the Council's policy deals with repeat offending.   Firstly, it is necessary to ensure that the convictions, independently, satisfy the policy guidelines, but that, collectively, they create a history of repeat offending that indicates a lack of respect for the welfare and property of others. The Policy states that 10 years must have elapsed since the most recent conviction.

 

dd)      The Sub-committee determined that the 1988 offences were violent offences. However, as these offences had occurred over 30 years ago, beyond the period of 3 years, paragraphs 6.2 and 6.5 of the Policy were irrelevant, and there was no reason to refuse the application. In weighing up the 1989 conviction for the purposes of the application, it was noted that the letter received from the Disclosure and Barring Service (dated 26.7.19) did not note the error appropriately, and therefore the applicant's statement was accepted.  However, as the offence had occurred over 30 years ago, this would not have led to refusal of the application, neither independently under paragraph 8.2, or collectively with the 1988 conviction under paragraph 16.1 as it was beyond the appropriate periods.

The Sub-committee was of the opinion that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a hackney vehicle and private hire driver's licence. 

 

The Solicitor reported that the decision would be confirmed formally by letter to the applicant.