To consider
an application by Mr A
(separate
copy for sub-committee members only)
Minutes:
a)
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 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 report recommended
that the application be refused.
The applicant was invited to expand on the
application and provide information about the
background of the offences and his
personal circumstances. He highlighted that the violence-related offence that occurred
in 2014, was one of hitting back when his former partner had behaved aggressively
to him.
He stated that he had been driving
taxis since 2008, and had received a licence following the
conviction in 2014.
The licence expired in
2019. The applicant's employer highlighted
that she had known him
for over 20 years and had
not received any complaints
about his behaviour during that period. She added that the incident of hitting back was out of character. She had no concerns
or doubts about continuing
to employ him and she trusted him.
The applicant and his representative 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 '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 March 1983, the
applicant received a conviction from Blaenau Ffestiniog
Magistrates' Court for a series of five charges associated with taking a
vehicle without consent contrary to Section 12 (1) of the Theft Act 1968. For these offences
he received a total of £113 in fines, was disqualified from driving for 12
months and received penalty points on his driving licence. In February 1984, the applicant received a
conviction from Blaenau Ffestiniog Magistrates' Court
for one charge of stealing from non-residential property - contrary to Section
9 (1) (B) of the Theft Act 1968. He was given a conditional discharge of 12 months, an order to
pay costs of £3 and damages of £29. In May 2014, he received a conviction from
Gwynedd Magistrates' Court for one charge of battery contrary to the Criminal
Justice Act 1998. He received a community order together with supervision
orders and unpaid work, costs of £85 and a victim's surcharge of £60.
Paragraph 2.2 of the Council's Policy was considered, in
which it states 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 has
a responsibility to show that he is a fit and proper person.
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. Paragraphs
6.3 - 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 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 amongst other offences burglary, taking a vehicle without
consent and theft.
Paragraph 12.2 notes
that an application would normally be refused where
the applicant had a conviction resulting in a period of disqualification of 12
months or more, unless a period of 18 months had elapsed from the end of the
disqualification period.
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.
The Sub-committee determined that the 1983 and 1984 offences concerned
offences of dishonesty. However, as the
last offence had occurred over 35 years ago (beyond the period of 3 years),
paragraph 8.2 was irrelevant, and there was no reason to refuse the
application.
In considering the
offence of speeding that lead to the driving disqualification, it was
highlighted that the disqualification had ended 35 years ago and therefore
paragraph 12.2 was irrelevant as grounds to refuse the application.
The sub-committee
determined that the 2014 conviction was violence-related,
however, as the offence had occurred over 5 years ago, there was no reason to
refuse the application.
Although the
Sub-committee came to the conclusion that the
individual convictions were no grounds to refuse the application, it was
decided to consider the convictions collectively, under paragraph 16.1. It was concluded that the convictions concerning dishonesty and
violence indicated a history of repeat offending which demonstrated a lack of
respect for the welfare and property of others. Consequently, this
consideration was grounds to refuse the application. The Policy's provisions were not mandatory
and it was possible to deviate from the recommendations if the facts of the
case could justify this. In considering if discretion should
be applied to deviate from the grounds presented, consideration had been
given to the seriousness of the offence, its relevance, the date committed, the
date of conviction, the applicant's age at the time of conviction, the sentence
given, whether a pattern of criminal behaviour was seen, as well as any other
relevant factors.
Specific
consideration was given to
·
the explanation received regarding the background
of the convictions
·
that the convictions in 1983 and 1984 had occurred
over 35 years ago
·
that there was no relevance between these
historical offences and the 2014 offence
·
the applicant has already been a taxi driver
licence holder since 2008. Although
there was no answer or reason why the applicant had received his licence back
following the 2014 conviction, it was stated that the
hearing formalised the procedure.
·
It was noted that the applicant had been driving
taxis without any recorded incident since the 2014 conviction - this was
considered to be a strong element in the applicant's
favour to deviate from the grounds to refuse the applciation.
Having weighed-up
the evidence and the information carefully, the Sub-committee was willing to
deviate from the Policy and it was resolved that the
applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a hackney/private hire driver's
licence.
The Solicitor reported that the decision would be confirmed
formally by letter to the applicant.