To consider
an application by Mr A
(separate
copy for sub-committee members only)
Decision:
That the applicant is a fit and
proper person to be issued with a hackney vehicle/private hire driver's licence
from Gwynedd Council.
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 carriage/private hire driver's licence. The Sub-committee was requested
to consider the application in accordance with the DBS record, the guidelines
on criminal offences and relevant convictions. The Licensing Authority
recommended that the Sub-committee should approve the application.
The applicant was invited to expand on the application and provide
information about the background of the convictions and his personal
circumstances. The applicant explained that the incidents recorded on the DBS
were historical and that he now had a family and was an experienced HGV and PSV
driver. His intention was to establish a business for his sons.
b)
RESOLVED that the applicant was a fit and proper person to be issued with a
hackney carriage/private hire vehicle 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
·
the applicant's medical
certificate
·
the Licensing Department's
report and the DBS statement
·
the applicant's verbal
representations
ch) Specific consideration was given to the following matters
In May 1991 the
applicant was found guilty by Bangor Magistrates Court for a charge of criminal
damage (contrary to s1 of the Criminal Damages Act 1971), obtaining money
through deception (contrary to s15 of the Theft Act 1968) and theft (contrary
to s1 of the Theft Act 1968). He received total fines of £275, and was ordered
to pay £53.00 in damages and costs of £15 for obtaining money through
deception.
In December 1991,
the applicant received a conviction from Caernarfon Magistrates' Court for a
charge of criminal damage contrary to s1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. He
received a fine of £100 and was ordered to pay damages of £276.91.
In May 1998, the
applicant was found guilty by Caernarfon Magistrates Court on a charge of
serious / aggravated burglary contrary to s10 of the Theft Act 1968. The
applicant received a three year prison sentence.
In August 2000,
the applicant was found guilty by Aberconwy Magistrates' Court of failure to
provide a test sample contrary to s7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He received a fine of £200, an order to pay
costs of £35 and was disqualified from driving for 20 months with an option to
reduce the penalty period by 25% by completing a course by September 2001.
In October 2001
the applicant was found guilty by Denbighshire Magistrates’ Court for using a
vehicle without insurance, contrary to s143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and
driving while disqualified, contrary to s103 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He
did not receive a penalty for using a vehicle without insurance but he received
a community penalty order for 80 hours, an order to pay costs of £55, and was
banned from driving for 12 months for driving while disqualified.
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, but 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
onus was on the applicant to prove that he was 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 6.0 of the
Policy addresses violent offences. Paragraph 6.1 states that, since licensed drivers
come into close contact regularly with the public, the sub-committee shall
adopt a firm stance towards those who have violence-related offences. Paragraph
6.6 of the Policy states that an application will normally be refused if an
applicant has more than one conviction for an offence of a violent nature
within the last ten years.
Paragraph 8.0 of the
Policy, which deals with dishonesty offences, was considered together with
paragraph 8.1 that states that a serious view shall be taken of any conviction
involving dishonesty. Paragraph 8.2
notes that an application would normally be refused where the applicant has a
conviction for a listed offence, and that the conviction was received less than
three years prior to the date of the application. It was noted that the list of
offences included burglary and obtaining property by deception, amongst other
offences.
Paragraph 11.0 which addressed drink-driving offences, was considered.
In paragraph 11.1, it was noted that a serious view would be taken of convictions
for driving or being responsible for a vehicle under the influence of alcohol /
drugs. Anyone who had been found guilty of offences relating to drink-driving
was unlikely to receive a licence until they had been free from a conviction(s)
for at least three years. A conviction for 'refusing or failing to provide a
sample' is dealt with in the same manner.
Section 12 of the
Policy relates to driving convictions, and paragraph 12.2 lists major traffic
offences for the purposes of the Policy. Amongst the offences were BA10
(driving while disqualified under a Court order) and IN10 (use of an uninsured
vehicle). It is noted that an application will normally be refused (12.10)
where the applicant has a recent conviction resulting in a period of disqualification
of 12 months or more, unless a period of at least 18 months has elapsed from
the end of the disqualification period.
d)
The Sub-committee concluded that the
convictions in May and December 1991 were violence-related offences. However,
since the last offence had occurred over ten years ago, paragraph 6.6 was
irrelevant, and there were no grounds to refuse the application.
The
Sub-committee came to the conclusion that the convictions and charges in May
1991 and September 1998 were offences of dishonesty, however, as these
convictions had occurred over three years ago, paragraph 8.2 was irrelevant
and, therefore, there was no basis to refuse the application.
The
Sub-committee came to the conclusion that paragraph 11.1 was irrelevant in
relation to the August 2000 conviction as the conviction was more than three
years old. In terms of the October 2001
conviction (for two traffic offences), the Sub-Committee found that the charges
were serious traffic offences, however, as the driving disqualifications had
ended more than 18 months ago, the Sub-committee was of the view that paragraph
12.10 was not grounds to refuse the application.
Having carefully
considered the evidence and information, the Sub-committee was in favour of
approving the application and it was determined that the applicant was a fit
and proper person to hold a hackney and private hire vehicle driver's licence.
The Solicitor reported that the decision would be confirmed formally by
letter to the applicant.