To consider
an application by Mr A
(separate
copy for sub-committee members only)
Decision:
Minutes:
The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. He highlighted 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 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 A to
renew a hackney/private hire driver’s licence. The Sub-committee was requested
to consider the application relating to the individual's suitability to be a
driver of a hackney/private hire vehicle.
The Licensing
Authority recommended that the Sub-committee should refuse the application
because the applicant's conduct in a recent incident did not meet the standard
expected of a taxi driver.
A CCTV video was
shown which evidenced the incident along with a history of reoffending in
relation to the 2010, 2018 and 2024 public order convictions.
In response to a
question regarding a licence renewal application, it was noted that a hackney /
private hire vehicle driver's licence was current for three years – this was
the standard period. It was highlighted that the applicant's licence had
expired in December 2024 and he did not disclose the
allegations against him on his application form – all applicants had a duty to
report any allegations against them to the Licensing Authority. It was
reiterated, occasionally, that the Police informed the Licensing Authority but
this time it was a member of the public who had complained to the Police before
bringing an official case against the applicant. After the applicant had been
before the Court, he submitted the information along with a signed statement while
awaiting a DBS.
The applicant was
invited to expand on the application and provide information about the
background of the incident and his personal circumstances. He noted that he had not fully completed his
application form as he was awaiting the verdict of the charge against him. In
the context of the December 2024 incident, he confessed that he had responded
to the victim's threat, but the victim had threatened him first. He also
revealed that he did not know the victim and had disclosed the incident to the
Licensing Department, the following morning. He reiterated that he had been a
bus driver for more than 30 years without any complaints and that the job as a
taxi driver meant so much to him.
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'
·
Individual Suitability
Guidelines
·
The report of the Licensing
Department
·
The applicant's application
form
·
DBS Statement
·
Disclosure of Convictions
and Statement signed on 21/11/24
·
Certificate of Conviction
from Caernarfon Magistrates Court
·
Information Assurance from
North Wales Police
·
Witness Statement
·
Applicant's Hearing Report
and Records November 2021
·
Closed Circuit Television
(CCTV) Evidence
·
Verbal comments by the
applicant together with written evidence and information
Specific consideration was given to the following matters
Background
In December 2024,
the applicant was found guilty of using threatening, aggressive and insulting
words that were likely to alarm, intimidate or distress contrary to the Public
Order Act 1986. He was ordered to pay £50 compensation with a fine of £400. The
Police did not present evidence on the charge of Assault by battery,
therefore, the charge was dropped.
In November 2018,
the applicant was found guilty of using threatening, aggressive and insulting
words that were likely to alarm, intimidate or distress contrary to the Public
Order Act 1986. He received a penalty of £100 and ordered to pay £85 costs.
In October 2010, the
applicant was found guilty of using threatening, aggressive or insulting
language, with the intention of causing distress or harassment contrary to the
Public Order Act 1986.
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 he 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 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
that 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 take into account all convictions recorded against an
applicant, whether spent or otherwise, under the 1974 Act.
Paragraph 6.0 of the
Policy addressed violent offences. Paragraph 6.1 stated that, since licensed
drivers came into close contact regularly with the public, the sub-committee
shall adopt a firm stance towards those who had offences involving violence.
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.
Paragraph 16.1
of the Policy deals with repeat offences.
Firstly, it must be ensured
that the convictions satisfy the policy guidelines individually, but that they
together create a history of repeat offending that indicates a lack of respect
for the welfare and property of others. The Policy
states that ten years must have elapsed since the most recent conviction.
CONCLUSIONS
The Sub-Committee
concluded that the convictions were violence-related offences.
In 2021, the Sub-Committee
resolved to approve the applicant's application after they had considered his
evidence although the policy stated that an application should be rejected if a
period of 10 years had not elapsed since the last conviction. In December 2024,
it was seen again that it was less than 3 years since the latest offence
(November 2021) and, therefore, a starting point for the considerations would
be to refuse the application. Consideration was also given to a pattern of
re-offending, which involved the same type of behaviour with two offences
within the 10-year period.
The Sub-Committee also
considered the circumstances in this particular case
and accepted that the applicant's comments about the incidents in question were
an honest statement of what had happened on the Maes
in Caernarfon. It was also accepted that, based on the evidence submitted, the
victim had come over to the applicant after seeing that he was parked on the Maes and, therefore, from what the Sub-Committee had seen
from Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) evidence of the Maes,
it was the victim who had started the confrontation on the night.
However, the applicant
disagreed with others' interpretation of his conduct in relation to the second
incident, with the victim later on the same night
denying punching the victim through a car window. It was not the role of the
sub-committee to reach a finding of fact whether or not
that incident amounted to an offence as the applicant had been charged with
assault by battery and the Police had not presented evidence in relation to
that charge. Nevertheless, CCTV evidence clearly showed that some time after the first incident, that the applicant by
stopping his car in front of the victim's car in order to
force him to stop, had got out of the car and threatened the victim. The
sub-committee concluded that regardless of what had occurred between the
applicant and the victim that this second incident had begun with the
applicant's actions and that his conduct was unacceptable and far from the
expected standard of a licensed driver.
It was made clear that
the Authority had a duty to protect the public and as part of that the risk of
repeat offending must be assessed. In light of the
latest incident (the December 2024 conviction), the Sub-Committee agreed with
the Licensing Unit that the applicant had received another conviction for the
same type of offence and that was proof that there had been no improvement in
his conduct since the November 2021 hearing. It was highlighted that this
pattern was one of aggression and intimidation with evidence of a further
incident in 2010. The Sub-Committee was therefore not confident that similar
behaviour would not be seen again.
The Sub-Committee also
considered the provisions of Suitability Guidelines, which set out the need to
consider the character of a driver as a whole including
the attitude and temperament of the individual concerned. It was reiterated
that the Guidelines emphasised that drivers needed to demonstrate
appropriate professional conduct at all times. In this case, the
relevance of paragraph 4.15 was considered as it stated that unacceptable
offences or conduct that occurred while driving a hackney or private hire
vehicle were constituted as a breach.
In addition, the
sub-committee was disappointed with the applicant's accusations towards the
officers of the Licensing authority. Again, this was not the conduct expected
of licensed drivers.
The sub-committee
concluded that the convictions were in themselves sufficient reason to reject
the application under Council Policy, but having considered all the evidence
submitted, no reason was found why the provisions of the Policy should not be
followed in this case. The Sub-Committee resolved to refuse the application and
deemed that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to renew their
hackney and private hire vehicle driver's licence with Cyngor Gwynedd.
The Solicitor
reported that the decision would be confirmed formally by letter to the
applicant highlighting his right to appeal the decision.