To consider an application by Mr C
(separate copy for sub-committee members only)
Minutes:
Also in attendance: Owain Williams (Public Protection Enforcement Officer - responsible officer for leading the prosecution in September 2016) and Alun Merfyn Roberts (Public Protection Enforcement Officer – Observer)
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 the application received
from Mr C 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 stated that he had been through
a difficult time recently with a marriage break-up, his son had been in a serious accident and the death of
one of his brothers. He noted that although he
was not making any excuses he had let matters slip regarding the administration and running of his taxi business. He added that he was
a good driver and he wished
to return to work in north
Wales. He argued that he should not be
criticised for one mistake
as he had been a faultless taxi driver.
The applicant withdrew from the room while members of the Sub-committee discussed the
application.
b)
RESOLVED that the applicant was not 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
·
verbal observations presented by the enforcement officer during the hearing
·
the Licensing Department's
report along with the DBS statement
ch) The applicant had received a conviction from
Liverpool Youth Court (June 1979) for one charge of theft, contrary to section
1 of the Theft Act 1968. He received a
conditional discharge for 12 months (conviction 1). In August 1984, the applicant was found guilty by Wirral Magistrates’ Court for one charge
of stealing from a vehicle contrary to the Theft Act 1968. He received a fine of £50.00 and an order to
pay damages of £12.00 (conviction 2). In
November 1986, the applicant was found guilty by
Birkenhead Magistrates’ Court on two counts of fraudulently claiming child
benefit contrary to section 11 of the Child Benefit Act 1975. He received a
fine of £60.00 and an order to pay costs of £30.00 and damages of £8.00
(conviction 3).
The applicant received a conviction in July 1991 by Dolgellau
Magistrates' Court on three charges - one of obstructing the police, contrary
to section 51 (3) Police Act 1964, and two charges of fraudently
receiving property contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. For the first charge, he received a fine of
£100.00 and ordered to pay £20.00 in costs. For the other two charges, he
received two conditional discharges for 12 months and an order to pay damages
of £195.00 (conviction 4).
In September 1991, the applicant was
found guilty by Wirral Magistrates’ Court for one charge of criminal
damage contrary to Section 1 of the Criminal Damages Act 1971. He was ordered to
pay damages of £212.13 (conviction 5). In November 1998, the applicant was found guilty by Ynys Môn Magistrate’s Court of forging a
document separate to a prescription for a listed drug contrary to section 1 of
the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. He received a fine of £40.00 and an
order to pay costs of £35.00 (conviction 6).
In September 2000, the applicant was
found guilty by Meirionnydd Magistrates’ Court for one charge of drink driving, contrary to Section 5 of the Road Traffic
Act 1988. He received a fine of £100.00,
an order to pay costs of £35.00, and was banned from
driving for 18 months (conviction 7).
The applicant was found guilty of three charges (April 2017) by
Caernarfon Magistrates’ Court in a prosecution made by Gwynedd Council
(conviction 8) in relation to allowing an unlicensed vehicle to be driven
without a current licence or valid insurance policy whilst transporting school
children in accordance with the Transport Contract, contrary to section 46 of
the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
For these offences he received a fine of £200 and 6
penalty points on his licence.
Following the incident several letters were sent to the applicant giving
him an opportunity to explain the circumstances of the incident, however, it
was found that the had moved away from the area. Under the provisions of section 44 of the
Town Police Clauses Act 1847, it is required that the owner of a hackney
vehicle informs the Council of a change of dwelling. He received a fine of £40
for this charge.
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 2.3 of the Policy states
that 'other matters for consideration' include 'fixed penalty notices'. Paragraph 2.4 states that 'where an
applicant has a conviction(s) or other matter(s) to be considered for a
criminal offence, the council cannot review the merits of the conviction or
other matter'.
Paragraph 4.5 of the Council policy was considered, which states 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 he/she has
been free from such 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 criminal damage and
obstruction are included in the list. Paragraph 6.6 states that an application will normally be refused if an applicant has more than one
conviction, or other matter, to be considered in the last 10 years for an
offence of a violent nature.
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 has a conviction(s) for an offence
listed, and the conviction was received less than three years prior to the date
of application. It was noted that the list of offences
included, amongst others, benefit fraud, forgery and burglary.
Paragraph 11.1 of the
Council's policy deals with drink driving and states that a single conviction
may not result in an application being refused provided that
at least three years have elapsed since the ending of the
disqualification.
Consideration was given to paragraph 12.2, which lists serious traffic
offences for the purposes of the Policy. Amongst the offences included were
'using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks'. Paragraph 12.3 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.
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 resolved that
·
convictions 1, 2, 3, 4 (charges 2 and 3) and 6 dealt with offences of
dishonesty. However, as the last
offence had occurred in 1998, over 20 years ago (beyond the period of 3 years),
paragraph 8.2 was irrelevant, and there was no reason to refuse the
application. Nevertheless, there could be grounds to refuse the application
collectively with other convictions in light of paragraph 16.1.
·
that convictions 4 (charge 1) and 5 dealt with violence-related offences.
However, as the last conviction occurred in 1991, over 27 years ago (beyond the
period of 10 years), paragraph 6.6 of the Policy was irrelevant and there was
no reason to refuse the application. Nevertheless, there could be grounds to
refuse the application collectively with other convictions in light of
paragraph 16.1.
·
that conviction 7 involved
drink-driving. As the
disqualification had ended in 2002 at the latest, paragraph 11.1 of the Policy
was irrelevant and there was no reason to refuse the application. Nevertheless,
there could be grounds to refuse the application collectively with other
convictions in light of paragraph 16.1.
·
that conviction 8 (charge 2) concerned a serious traffic offence. The
applicant argued that he was insured despite his
guilty plea and he presented a letter from his insurers to support this.
However, the applicant did not present evidence that he had taken measures to
appeal or to overturn the conviction through the Court. In addition, paragraph 2.4 was
considered which clearly states that the merits of the conviction cannot
be reviewed. Nevertheless, as the
conviction occurred over six months ago, paragraph 12.3 was irrelevant, although
there could be grounds to refuse the application collectively with other
convictions in light of paragraph 16.1.
In considering the convictions the Sub-committee was of the opinion that repeat offending
indicated a lack of respect
for the welfare or property
of others. Consequently, paragraph 16.6 of
the policy was relevant. The Solicitor
highlighted that the Policy's provisions were not mandatory and it was possible
to deviate from the recommendation if the facts of the case justified this. Special consideration was given
to paragraph 4.2 of the report that included the seriousness of the offences,
relevance, the date committed, the date of conviction and the applicant's age
at the time of conviction, the sentence given by the Court and whether there
was a pattern of offending, as well as any other relevant factors.
The applicant explained that he was going through a difficult personal time
during the period that lead up to the 2017 conviction. Although the Sub-committee sympathised with the
applicant, they had to give priority and protect public safety. Having fully
considered the circumstances, the Sub-committee was not convinced that this was
a case where they could justify deviating from the policy.
The Sub-committee
was of the opinion that the applicant was not 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.