Minutes:
The Director of Environment and
Community Services submitted an exempt report in connection with an application
for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 08/25, where circumstances had
arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.
The Chair introduced those
present and outlined the procedure to be followed. The applicant, who was in
attendance at the meeting, verified his name and address and confirmed
he had received a copy of the report and understood its contents.
The Licensing Manager presented a
summary of the report stating that the driver appeared before Members due to
the convictions listed at 1) and 2) in the submitted report.
It was highlighted that the
applicant had answered ‘no’ to the question on the application form regarding
having any cautions, criminal convictions, etc.
The applicant submitted his
application on 3 October 2024 and, on 11 December 2024, provided a DBS
Disclosure Certificate showing the two convictions recorded against him.
The applicant was contacted by
the Licensing Enforcement Officer on 2 January 2025 advising him that his
application would need to be considered by the Licensing Committee due to his
convictions and on 3 January 2025, the Licensing Officer emailed the application
requesting as much information as possible in relation to both offences. The driver responded the same day providing
details of both offences.
On 9 January 2025 the Principal
Licensing Officer contacted South Yorkshire Police requesting information
regarding the offences, particularly the offence at 2) and subsequently
discovered local media coverage of the incident, which was appended to the report. Full details of correspondence exchanges
between the Principal Licensing Officer and Police were contained in the
report.
The
applicant was invited to address the Committee in support of his application
and responded to questions from Members of the Committee and the Council’s
Legal Representative.
It was confirmed that there were
no further questions and the applicant, and Officers of the Council, other than
representatives of the Council’s Legal and Democratic Services teams, withdrew
from the meeting whilst the Committee determined the review.
Subsequently, all parties
returned, and the Chair announced a summary of the Committee’s decision and
highlighted that the driver would receive the full decision and reasons within
five working days.
ORDERED that the application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s
Licence, Ref No: 08/25, be granted, as follows:-
Authority to Act
1.
Under
Section 51 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (“the
Act”) the Committee may decide to grant a Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence only if it was satisfied the driver was a fit and
proper person to be granted such a licence.
2.
The
Committee considered Section 51 of the Act, the Middlesbrough Council Private
Hire and Hackney Carriage Policy 2022 (“the Policy”), the report and
representations made by the applicant.
3.
The
application was considered on its own particular facts and on its merits.
Decision
4.
After
carefully considering all the information, the Licensing Committee decided to
grant the application for a Private Hire vehicle driver’s licence
on the grounds that it was satisfied the applicant was a fit and proper person
to be granted such a licence.
Reasons
5.
The
applicant was convicted of two offences as follows:-
a)
Failing
to surrender to custody at appointed time on 20 May 2009. Bail Act 1976 S.6(1)
– 28 May 2009 – One day’s custody.
b)
Owner/Person
in charge of dog dangerous out of control causing injury on 21 September 2019.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 S.3 – 14 January 2020 - Suspended imprisonment 4 months
wholly suspended 12 months. Costs £150. Victim surcharge £122. Forfeiture and destruction of dog.
6.
The
Policy on Convictions was set out at Appendix G, Policy on the Relevance of
Convictions, Cautions, Reprimands, Warnings, Complaints and Character.
7.
A
person with a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning issued by the
Police, may not be permanently barred from obtaining a licence
but should be expected to remain free from conviction or incident for an
appropriate period, set out in the Policy.
8.
For
a new application an applicant must produce adequate information that they were
a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Simply remaining conviction free may not
generally be regarded as adequate evidence that an applicant was a fit and
person to hold a licence.
9.
If
offences had been committed, the Council would consider the nature of the
offence, the age of the conviction, the age of the applicant when convicted,
the sentence imposed and any other relevant factors.
10.
The
application was made for the grant of a Private Hire Vehicle driver licence on 3 October 2024.
11.
In
the application form, the applicant answered ‘no’ to having any cautions,
criminal convictions or being aware of any enquiries or investigations by the
Police or Local Authority. However, the
applicant provided his DBS Disclosure Certificate which showed the two aforementioned convictions.
12.
Licensing
Officers questioned the applicant on the two offences
and he explained, in an email exchange, that for the first offence he had
failed to attend Doncaster Magistrates Court as he had another matter at
Sheffield Family Court on the same day, where he was attempting to obtain
custody of his daughter. Efforts were
made to contact the Court at Doncaster, to no avail. Once the applicant had returned to Doncaster,
he handed himself in.
13.
With
regard to the second offence, the applicant explained during his email exchange
that he was living with his mother-in-law during her end of
life care. One of the nurses had
entered the property using a key from the external key safe. The dog had run towards the door, which in
turn had panicked the nurse who had run to the back garden of the property with
her arms flailing leaving the door open, the dog followed jumping up and nipped
her leg. The applicant came downstairs
and asked if the nurse was injured, to which she showed him a puncture wound on
her leg that was a small tooth mark with a bit of blood.
14.
Licensing
Officers contacted South Yorkshire Police who confirmed that the injuries
sustained were more serious than a small tooth mark, they stated that the
victim sustained wounds to the inside leg, outside leg and tricep
of arm which required treatment. This
suggested that it was more than the ‘nip’ that the applicant had claimed.
15.
A
report contained in the Star newspaper had taken direct quotes from the
Barrister who had prosecuted the applicant.
The Barrister stated that the nurse “tried to get away but it bit her
arm and several places around her body and she got
hold of the dog by its neck”.
16.
The
applicant stated during the Committee hearing that he had no control over the
dog as he was upstairs. He also stated
that there was a procedure in place whereby nobody was to enter the property
with a key, so that the dog could be put away in a safe place.
17.
When
asked in the Committee hearing why the dog needed to be put away, the applicant
stated for fear of the dog escaping the house, rather than fear of it injuring
someone.
18.
Furthermore,
when asked, the applicant stated he had only seen the puncture wound and none
of the other injuries.
19.
When
asked why he failed to disclose the convictions, the applicant stated that he
did not think this was a criminal offence that needed to be disclosed, as it
was his dog and not him, and that it was an honest mistake as to why he did not
include it in his application form.
20.
The
Committee accepted the applicant’s account of what had happened with regards to
the two offences. The Committee also
considered that, whilst the applicant had failed to disclose the offences on
his application form, this was an oversight rather than dishonesty and accepted
his reasoning for not doing so.
21.
The
Committee considered that whilst the second offence may be viewed as a violent
offence, the violent act was committed by the applicant’s dog and not him
personally.
22.
The
overriding duty and aim of the Council was to protect
the public. The Committee did not see
the applicant as a risk to the public, but rather they considered the applicant
a fit and proper person to hold a licence and,
therefore, decided to grant the licence.
Supporting documents: