To consider
an application by Mr A
(separate
copy for sub-committee members only)
Decision:
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.
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed everyone
to the meeting. He explained that the decision would be made in accordance with
Cyngor Gwynedd'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 was a fit and proper person
• The person did not pose a threat to the public
• The public were safeguarded from dishonest
persons
• Children and young people were protected
• Vulnerable persons were protected
• The public had confidence in using licensed
vehicles.
The Licensing Manager presented the written report on
the 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 relevant
convictions.
It was recommended that the Licensing Authority gave
Mr A an opportunity to explain the background of the incident and offer valid
reasons to the Sub-committee about why he believed that he was now a 'fit and
proper' person to receive a hackney licence. If the Sub-committee following
that, was not convinced that the applicant was a 'fit and proper' person, then
it was recommended that the application was refused because it was contrary to
clause 6.1 and 6.2 of the Council's Suitability Criteria for Drivers and
Operators.
The applicant's representative was invited to expand
on the application and provide information about the background of the
conviction and the applicant's personal circumstances. It was noted that the incident had been
acknowledged by the officers at the Licensing Unit, but it was alleged that the
other individual had been hit first. It was added that the individual's behaviour
towards the applicant had been unacceptable on many occasions, and that the
applicant had tried to call the Police, but they were unable to respond in
time. However, it was explained that the other individual had also been
prosecuted and convicted for the same crime.
Two references were submitted for the character of the
applicant along with brief descriptions of this judgement in the Court.
It was agreed to share a video of the incident.
It was noted that the applicant did not have no other
convictions or other matters to be considered and that driving a taxi was his
livelihood (he had a licence since 2018). This was an isolated incident,
contrary to his character; there was no pattern of inappropriate behaviour, and
the applicant had already received a punishment from the Court for his behaviour.
In response to a question regarding how the applicant
could convince the Sub-committee that he was a fit and proper person, it was
noted that this was one incident and he had not been a part of any dispute
prior to this, and that he was not a violent man.
In response to an observation that the applicant's
documents had been sent to the incorrect address, the Licensing Manager noted
that the Licensing Unit had not received the new updated address and that the
address that was on the applicant's licence had been used.
It was RESOLVED that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be
issued with a hackney carriage/private hire driver's licence from Cyngor
Gwynedd.
In reaching its decision, the Sub-committee considered
the following:
·
The requirements of 'Cyngor
Gwynedd's Licensing Policy for Hackney Carriages and Private Hire
Vehicles'
·
The Licensing Department's
report and Enforcement Officers' Statements
·
DBS Statement
·
The applicant's application
form
·
Verbal observations by the
applicant's representative and a reference
Specific consideration was given to the
following matters:
Background
In December 2022, the applicant's licence had been
suspended to safeguard the public: in accordance with the provisions in Section
61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. In February
2023, he received a conviction for Using / Threatening Violence in a public
space, and a fine of £200; costs of £85 and surcharge of £80.
Based on the fact that the
applicant had pleaded guilty to the accusation; the Licensing Unit decided to
remove his taxi vehicle driving licence and gave him a copy of the revocation
notice in accordance with section 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous
Provision) Act 1976 with immediate action.
RELEVANT CLAUSES OF
THE POLICY
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 the person will be expected to have been
free of any conviction for an appropriate period as stated in the Policy, and
to show evidence that he/she 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 stated
that when an applicant had a conviction(s) or there were other matter(s) to be
considered in connection with that, the Council could not review the merits of
the conviction or the other matter.
Paragraph 4.5 was considered which stated that the
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002
allowed the Sub-committee to consider all convictions recorded against an
applicant, whether spent or otherwise, under the 1974 Act.
Paragraph 6.1 noted
that, since licensed drivers came into close contact with the public regularly,
the sub-committee would adopt a firm stance towards those who had
violence-related offences.
Paragraph
6.2 noted that anyone found guilty of an offence relating to violence was
unlikely to be granted a licence until they have been free from such a
conviction for a minimum of three years. However,
when considering the range of offences involving violence, consideration had to
be given to the nature of the offence.
Paragraph 6.5 of the
Policy stated that an application for a licence would normally be refused if
the applicant had 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.
CONCLUSIONS
The Policy's provisions, the applicant's representative’s explanation of
the circumstances, and the Licensing Manager's recommendation were considered.
It was reported that the Sub-committee had some sympathy with the applicant
regarding the incident and accepted that there were two obvious sides to the
story, with the other individual in question sharing responsibility for what
happened. However, it was noted that attention had to be given to the
Authority's Policy provisions, that stated that the application would normally
be refused, unless a period of at least 3 years had elapsed since such an
offence happened.
The Sub-committee was aware, although the period of time was noted in the
guidelines, that there was an opportunity for the applicant to evidence that he
was a fit and proper person to hold a hackney vehicle/private hire driver's
licence. Although those officers of the department had not received any
complaints about threatening / violent behaviour on the part of the applicant
since the incident in December 2022, it was a cause for concern that only about
half the expected period of 3 years had passed since the incident.
The Sub-committee gave very serious consideration to the fact that the
incident happened whilst the applicant worked as a taxi driver, therefore it
was concerned, if he was in a stressful situation where he would be likely to
have to deal with challenging or provocative behaviour, that he would be
expected to respond appropriately. It was considered that how the driver
responded to such situations was relevant, as there was a need to ensure that
the safety of the public was central to the Sub-Committee's duty when
considering applications.
After considering all the factors, the sub-committee was not convinced that
the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence currently. To
address the Authority's Policy requirements, it did not consider that enough
time had passed since the conviction and that there were no exceptional
circumstances in this case that would justify deviating from the Policy.
The Sub-committee determined in favour of refusing the
application as the applicant was not 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.