To consider an application by Mr B
(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 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, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency statement, and the
guidelines on relevant criminal offences and convictions. The Licensing Authority recommended that the
Sub-committee should refuse the application.
The applicant was not present to expand on his
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 their 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
·
The Licensing Department's
report, the DBS statement and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency statement
·
Institute of Licensing Guidance
·
Video clip of January 2019 incident
ch) Specific consideration
was given to the following matters.
In
May 1982, the applicant received a conviction for a series of offences. The
first offence was for theft from a vehicle contrary to the Theft Act 1968. The second was for
burglary, the third for criminal damage contrary to section 1 of the Criminal
Damages Act 1971, and the fourth was also for theft from a vehicle. For every individual charge he received a
community service order of 150 hours, an order to make a contribution towards
legal aid of £75.00 and an order to pay costs of £75.00.
In November 1983, the
applicant received a conviction from Pwllheli Magistrates' Court for one charge
of attempted theft from a vehicle, contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.
He received a fine of £60.00 and ordered to pay costs of £3.00. In May 1985, he
received a conviction from Pwllheli Magistrates' Court for a series of charges
- offences relating to theft, contrary to Section 1, Theft Act 1968 and of
attempted burglary contrary to section 9(1)(B) Theft Act 1968. He was given a youth custody sentence for 6
months and an order to pay damages of £450.00.
In October 1988, he was
convicted by Caernarfon Crown Court on a charge of assault that led to bodily
harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He
received a 9 month custodial sentence which was suspended for 6 months.
Following an incident
in January 2019, he was convicted at North West Wales' Magistrates Court
(September 2019) of dangerous interference with traffic equipment contrary to
section 22A(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
He received a fine of £250.00 and was ordered to pay costs of £775.00
and a victim's surcharge of £30.00.
It was highlighted that
North Wales Police had disclosed additional information in relation to the
January 2019 incident, that the applicant when driving a taxi and transporting
passengers had moved road closure barriers. The Licensing Officer confirmed
that a video of the incident was circulated on a social media website (claiming
to have been taken from the mobile phone of one of the passengers in the taxi)
of the applicant moving the barriers.
When the video came to the attention of the Licensing Authority, the
evidence was submitted to the Police.
It was added that an Enforcement Officer from the Licensing Authority
had confirmed in a statement that he identified the applicant as the individual
in the video. The video was shown to
the Sub-committee.
It was noted in the
report that the applicant's taxi driving licence had expired a few days after
the applicant had been convicted in September 2019.
d)
Paragraph 2.2 of the Council's Policy was
considered, which states that a person with a conviction for a serious offence
need not be automatically barred from obtaining a licence. However, a person
would normally be expected to remain free of any conviction for an appropriate
period as stated in the Policy, and to show evidence that the individual is a
fit and proper person to hold a licence.
The applicant has a responsibility to prove that he is a fit and proper
person.
Paragraph 4.5 was
considered which states that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
(Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002 allows 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 6.5 of the Policy states that an
application for a licence will usually be refused if the applicant has a matter
to be considered (including cautions) for common assault and/or an offence
under S4 of the Public Order Act 1986 which happened less than three years
before the date of application.
Paragraph 6.6 also states that an application will normally be refused
if an applicant has more than one conviction for an offence of a violent
nature, or other matter to be considered in connection with that, within the
last 10 years.
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.
Section 12 of the
Policy concerns motoring convictions, however, the list of motoring offences do
not include the offence of dangerous interference with traffic equipment.
Paragraph 14.1 of the
Policy states that if the individual is the subject of an outstanding charge or
summons their application can continue to be processed, but in the interests of
public safety the matter will be considered and may be deferred for
determination until proceedings are concluded.
Section 17 of the
Policy addresses situations of breaching an Act, a Byelaw or a Licence
condition. It is noted that an applicant who has a conviction or other matters to
be considered for a breach of legislation, byelaw or licence condition is
unlikely to be granted a licence unless a period of at least 12 months has
elapsed since the most recent breach.
In addition to the
legislation and the Policy, the Sub-committee was requested to consider the
Institute of Licensing's guidance in relation to the suitability and propriety
of applicants for a taxi driving licence.
Attention was drawn specifically to paragraph 4.15 of the guidance that
recommends,
“Any offence committed, or any
unacceptable behaviour reported whilst driving a hackney carriage or private
hire vehicle…will be viewed as aggravating features, and the fact that any
other offences were not connected with the hackney carriage and private hire
trades will not be seen as mitigating factors. ”
And paragraph 4.26 that states,
“A driver has direct responsibility for the safety of their passengers,
direct responsibility for the safety of other road users and significant
control over passengers who are in the vehicle. As those passengers may be
alone, and may also be vulnerable, any previous convictions or unacceptable
behaviour will weigh heavily against a licence being granted or retained.”
dd) The Sub-committee determined that the 1982 and
1988 offences were violent offences. However, as the last conviction had
occurred over 31 years ago (beyond the period of 3 years), paragraphs 6.5 and
6.6 were irrelevant, and therefore were no basis to refuse the application. The
Sub-committee came to the conclusion that the convictions in 1982, 1983 and
1985 were offences of dishonesty, however, as the last conviction had occurred
over 34 years ago (which is beyond the period of 3 years), paragraph 8.2 was
irrelevant and, therefore, there was no basis to refuse the application.
In considering the
September 2019 conviction, the Sub-committee came to the conclusion that it did
not fall within the contents of part 12 of the Policy (motoring offences) and
therefore the recommendation in favour of disqualification was irrelevant.
However, it was considered that the incident did involve the breach of
legislation and fell within the contents of part 17 of the Policy. Since this incident had occurred less than 12
months ago paragraph 17.1 of the policy was relevant and recommended that the
application be refused.
Although
they were aware that the Policy provisions were not mandatory and it was
possible to deviate from it if the facts of the case justified this, the
Sub-committee considered paragraph 5.1 of the Policy. In this case the facts did not justify
deviating from the recommendation to refuse the application.
It was
considered that a lack of relevant provision within the Policy did not mean
that the application could not be refused.
It was explained that if the Sub-committee was of the view that
convictions, together with other matters meant that the applicant was not a fit
and proper person to hold a hackney/private hire driver's licence then the
application could be refused with the support and guidance of the Institute of
Licensing.
It was
considered that the January 2019 incident was very serious. While he was a licensed taxi driver the
applicant moved road barriers to continue on his journey. He had acted illegally and had shown a lack
of appreciation to the health and safety of his passengers placing them in a
situation of considerable risk.
In the
Sub-committee's view paragraph 14.1 of the Policy was not relevant in this case
as there was no situation whereby the applicant was awaiting a judgement in
relation to a charge against him. (It
was noted that the incident was subject to a Crown Court appeal). However, the
Policy referred to an outstanding summons and it was considered that the
summons the applicant had received in January 2019 had been answered as he had
been convicted by Caernarfon Magistrates' Court in September 2019.
Consequently, as paragraph 14.1 was not relevant, the Sub-committee was of the
view that there were grounds to defer the application as a result of the Crown
Court appeal.
Having carefully
considered all the evidence and information, the Sub-committee was not
satisfied 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 applicant had
the right to submit an appeal to Caernarfon Magistrates' Court against the
Sub-committee's decision and this should be submitted to the Chief Executive,
Llandudno Magistrates' Court within 21 days of receiving the letter confirming
the Sub-committee's decision.