To consider an application by Mr B
(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 Manager submitted
the written report on the application received from Mr 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 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 offences and his personal
circumstances. He explained that the incidents that were
recorded on the DBS were historical. It was noted
that Mr B, when he was young, had mixed with the wrong crowd, that his
convictions were spent, and that he had been free from any offences for 37
years.
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
·
the
Licensing Department's report and the DBS statement
·
verbal
observations by the applicant
·
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing
Agency's guidelines
ch) Specific
consideration was given to the following matters:
In September 1972, the applicant was found guilty by Tywyn
Magistrates Court for criminal damage contrary to s1 Criminal Damages Act 1971. He received a fine of £100.00 and was ordered to pay damages of £13.00.
In October 1972, the
applicant was found guilty by Tywyn Magistrates Court
for common assault contrary to s42, 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861,
and possession of an offensive weapon contrary to s1 Prevention of Crime Act
1953. He received a conditional discharge and his weapon was confiscated.
In October 1975, the applicant was found guilty by Tywyn
Magistrates Court for a series of 12 charges. Two charges relating to
making threatening telephone calls (contrary to s78 Post Office Act 1969): One
charge of posting an article on Post Office property (contrary to s61 Post
Office Act 1969): one charge of causing criminal damage (contrary to s1 of the
Criminal Damage Act 1971): four charges of carrying an air gun in a public
place (contrary to s19 Firearms Act 1968): One charge of using threatening /
aggressive / insulting language (contrary to the s5 Public Order Act 1936):
Three charges of firing a weapon within 50 metres of a highway (contrary to
s161 Highways Act 1980). He received orders, fines and costs, and was sentenced to three months in a detention centre.
In September 1982 the applicant was convicted by Tywyn
Crown Court on a charge of inflicting injury to a person through a
serious physical attack contrary to s20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
He received a six-month prison sentence (suspended for two
years), a fine of £100.00 and ordered to pay costs of £3.00.
In September 1983, the
applicant was found guilty by Tywyn Magistrates Court
of wasting Police time (contrary to s5(2) Criminal Law
Act 1967) and for the use of threatening / abusive / insulting language
(contrary to s5(1) (a) Public Order Act 1986). He received a fine of £300.00
and was ordered to pay costs of £3.00.
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 2.4 of the
policy notes that when 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 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 offences involving violence.
Paragraph 6.4 of the Policy states that an application for a licence will
usually be refused if the applicant has a matter to be considered for serious
common assault with intention and/or a firearm in their possession, that is
less than ten years prior to the date of the application. 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 and/or criminal
damage and/or an offence under the Public Order Act 1986
which happened less than three years before the date of application.
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.
a)
The
Sub-committee came to the conclusion that all the convictions listed above were
violence-related, however, as the last conviction dated from 1983, 37 years
ago, paragraphs 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 were irrelevant and, therefore, there was no
reason 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.