To consider an application by Mr B
(separate copy for sub-committee members only)
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. He 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 Manager submitted the written report on the application
received from Ms B 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's
representative was invited to expand on the
application and provide information about the background of the offences and
the applicant's personal circumstances.
The applicant withdrew from the room while members of the Sub-committee
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 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 and his representative during the hearing
·
the Licensing Department's
report along with the DBS statement
In 1978 and April
1979, the applicant received convictions from Caernarfon Magistrates' Court for
stealing from a shop, contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. In January
1982, he received a conviction from Caernarfon Magistrates' Court for two
offences of supplying and being in possession of controlled drugs, contrary to
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was given a fine of £70 and
ordered to pay costs of £3. Later in August 1984, he received another
conviction of possessing controlled drugs where he was given
a fine of £50. In March 1985, the applicant was found
guilty of handling stolen property contrary to the Theft Act 1968 (he received
an order to undertake 240 hours of community services). In 1986, the applicant
received a conviction for possessing controlled drugs and was
given a prison sentence for 28 days. In November 1997, he received
convictions for possessing controlled drugs. Since November 1997, the applicant
had no further convictions - it was noted that he had
a clean driving licence.
Paragraph 2.2 of the Council's Policy was considered,
in which it stated 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/she was a fit and proper person to
hold a licence. The applicant had a responsibility to prove
that he was 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 8.0 of the
Policy, which addressed dishonesty offences, was considered
together with paragraph 8.1 that stated that a serious view was taken of any
conviction involving dishonesty. Paragraph 8.2 noted that an application would normally be refused where the applicant had 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 and theft, amongst other offences.
Consideration was
given to paragraph 9.0 of the Policy which addressed drug-related offences with
clause 9.1 of the policy noting that any offences related to drugs was a
serious matter. Paragraph 9.2 noted that an application would be refused where
the applicant had a conviction relating to the supply of drugs, and that the
conviction was received less than five years prior the date of application.
Paragraph 9.3 noted that an application would be refused
where the applicant had a conviction relating to the possession of drugs, and
that the conviction was received less than five years prior to the date of
application.
The Sub-committee determined that the offences concerned offences of
dishonesty. However, as the last offence
had occurred in 1985, over 34 years ago (beyond the period of 3 years),
paragraph 8.2 was irrelevant, and there was no reason to refuse the
application.
The drug-related
offences were also historical offences, the last offence had occurred in 1997
(over 22 years ago) - beyond the period of five years, paragraphs 9.1, 9.2 and
9.3 were irrelevant and, therefore, there was no reason to refuse the
application.
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.