To consider
an application by Mr A
(separate
copy for sub-committee members only)
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. He
highlighted 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
and the aim was to protect the public by ensuring that:
• A person is a fit and proper person
• The person does not pose a threat to the public
• That the public are safeguarded from dishonest
persons
• The safeguarding of children and young people
• The safeguarding of vulnerable persons
• The public have confidence in their use of licensed
vehicles.
The Licensing Officer 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 DBS record, and the guidelines on relevant criminal offences and convictions.
It was highlighted that the applicant had been a licensed driver with the
Council at the time of an incident, which led to his being cautioned by North
Wales Police in May 2017. In accordance with taxi licensing conditions, drivers
were required to inform the Licensing Authority of any conviction or criminal
incident leading to a Police Caution.
The applicant was invited to expand upon his
application and to offer reasons for not notifying the Licensing Authority of
the caution he had received from North Wales Police (May 2017) for disorderly
behaviour. Mr A noted that the incident had taken place on his stag night and
that his behaviour had been out of character. He regretted what he had done and
explained that he had apologised to the shop owner the following morning for
his behaviour. He was not aware that
accepting a caution was considered to be a conviction and that it would appear
on his DBS record.
The applicant's employer was invited to submit
observations and confirmed that he was not aware of the caution when he offered
the post to Mr A although the applicant had now provided him with a full
explanation of the incident. The employer reiterated that the applicant was a
good driver and there had been no complaints about his work of transporting people
to and back and forth to hospital.
The applicant withdrew from the room whilst the
Sub-committee members discussed the application.
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.
In reaching their decision, the Sub-committee
considered the following:
• the
requirements of the 'Gwynedd Council's Licensing Policy for Hackney Carriages
and Private Hire Vehicles' Gwynedd
• the
applicant's application form
• verbal
observations, documents, photographs submitted by the applicant during the
hearing
• verbal
observations by the applicant's employer
• the
Licensing Department's report along with the DBS statement disclosing convictions.
Specific consideration was given to the following
matters.
The applicant received a conviction for a series of
offences (January 2010). The first offence was failing to surrender to Custody
on the allocated time which is contrary to the requirements of section 6 of the
Bail Act 1976. He was given a fine of £100 and was ordered to pay £85 costs.
The second offence was for being drunk and disorderly under section 91 of the
Criminal Justice Act 1967 (January 2010) where he was fined £50. The applicant received a conviction from
Wolverhampton Magistrates' Court (February 2010) for damage to property
contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. He was given a fine of £65 and ordered to pay
costs of £85. In May 2017, the applicant received a caution from North Wales
Police for the use of threatening and insulting words or behaviour, or
disorderly behaviour intending to cause harassment, alarm or distress contrary
to the Public Order Act 1986.
Paragraph 2.2 of the Council's Policy was
considered, this 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 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 applicant has a
responsibility to show that he/she is a fit and proper person.
Paragraph 2.3 of the Policy was considered, where
reference is made to 'other matters for consideration'.
Paragraph
4.5 of the Council policy 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 6.5 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 that is less
than three years prior to the date of application. It is also stated in paragraph 6.6 that an
application will usually be refused if an applicant has more than one conviction
in the last 10 years for an offence of a violent nature or another matter to be
considered in relation to that.
The sub-committee also gave consideration
to paragraph 16.1 of the Council's policy that deals with repeat offending.
Firstly, it is necessary to ensure that the convictions satisfy the individual
policy guidelines, but that they together create a history of repeat offending
that indicates a lack of respect for the welfare and property of others. Under
the Policy it is a requirement that 10 years have elapsed since the most recent
conviction.
The
Sub-committee noted there are no specific provisions in the Policy in relation
to the first two offences (failure to surrender to custody and being drunk and
disorderly). Although these offences did
highlight concern, they were beyond the requirements of the three year policy
and did not form sufficient grounds to refuse the application.
Nevertheless,
the Sub-committee considered that the offence of damage to property and the
caution received in 2017 were violent offences and also counted as more than
one offence of a violent nature within the last ten years. This provided
grounds to consider paragraph 6.6 of the policy. Additionally, both offences also created a
history of re-offending which demonstrated a lack of respect towards the
welfare and property of others. Under
paragraph 16.6 of the policy, 10 years must elapse since the most recent
conviction.
Under the provisions in Sections 51, 55, and 59 of the Act, the
Licensing Authority is required to ensure that an individual applying for a
driver's / operator's licence, or to renew such a licence, is a 'fit and
proper' person to hold that licence. However, if there are any matters to be considered in
relation to the applicant / licence holder, the Licensing Authority must
consider the severity, relevance, date of the offence, date of conviction, age
at time of conviction, type of sentence, patterns of offending and other.
Having considered the background of the incident in 2017
the Sub-committee was not satisfied, although the applicant did admit his
guilt, that the reasons for his behaviour are sufficient to excuse the offence.
It was noted that the applicant had a hackney driving licence at the time he received
the caution from North Wales Police but that this information was not shared
with the Licensing Department. It appears that the information was shared when
completing and application to review a licence.
Despite the applicant noting that he was not aware of the need to
disclose the information about the caution, the Sub-committee did not accept
this as the licence application form notes a clear need for information about
offences and cautions. As a driver, he should
be aware of this need.
The Sub-committee took into consideration that the
applicant did not make an honest
disclosure to his employer and that this highlighted that he was not a
fit and proper person.
The Solicitor reported that the decision would
be confirmed formally by letter to the applicant and that he also had the right
to appeal against the Sub-committee's decision within 21 days of receiving the
letter.