Agenda item

The Director of Environment and Community Services submitted an exempt report in connection with an application for a Hackney Carriage Driver Licence, Ref: 12/25, 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, outlining that the applicant was previously licensed as a Private Hire Vehicle driver with Middlesbrough Council in November 2001, until July 2017 when his licence was revoked by the Licensing Committee as a result of the convictions at 1) and 2) in the submitted report.

 

The applicant appeared before the Licensing Committee on 5 September 2022 when his application for a Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Vehicle driver licence was refused.  A summary of the Committee’s decision on that occasion was detailed in the report.  A copy of the decision letter fully detailing the Committee’s decision and reasons was attached at Appendix 1 for information.

 

The applicant was interviewed on 7 January 2025 by the Licensing Enforcement Officer when he provided explanations for the offences at 1) and 2) and confirmed that there were no other outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware.

 

On 19 March 2025, the Principal Licensing Officer telephoned the applicant to ask whether he wished to provide any further information in support of his application.  The applicant subsequently provided further information, via email, in relation to his previous and current employment since the revocation of his previous licence.  The applicant also provided character references from the owner of a local gym (Appendix 2) and his current Manager (Appendix 4).  Information regarding his daughter’s medical treatment was attached at Appendix 3 for information.

 

The applicant confirmed the content of the report as being an accurate representation of the facts and was invited to address the Committee in support of his application.

 

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 application. 

 

Subsequently, all parties returned, and the Chair announced a summary of the Committee’s decision and highlighted that the applicant 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: 12/25, be refused, as follows:-

 

Authority to Act

 

1.     Under Section 59 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (“the Act”) the Committee may decide to grant a Hackney Carriage 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 59 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 refuse to grant the application for a Hackney Carriage driver’s licence on the grounds that the Committee was not satisfied the applicant was a fit and proper person to be granted the licence.  The reasons for the decision were as follows:

 

Reasons 

 

5.     The applicant appeared before the Committee on 26 November 2001 due to four convictions on his record - three related to driving offences and one related to robbery.  On that occasion, following the applicant’s representations, he was granted a Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence.

 

6.     On 27 January 2017, the applicant was convicted of Wounding/Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, suspended for a period of two years, as well as being ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.  The sentence was completed on 26 January 2019 when the suspended sentence expired.  As a result of the offence, the applicant had his licence revoked in July 2017, and in September 2022 the applicant was refused a licence by the Committee.

 

7.     The Policy on convictions was set out at Appendix G, Policy on the Relevance of Convictions, Cautions, Reprimands, Warnings, Complaints and Character.

 

8.     It was further stated in the Policy that drivers had close regular contact with the public and were in an extreme position of trust.  A person who had a tendency to be violent, aggressive or who responded with violence when provoked, would not be suitable to be granted a licence.

 

9.     The Policy detailed that a licence would normally be refused where the applicant had a conviction for an offence of violence against the person, or connected with any offence of violence until a period of at least ten years free of such conviction had elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed.

 

10.  The Committee heard the details of the incident.  It was explained that the applicant had a dispute with his lone passenger and was subsequently struck from behind by the passenger.  The applicant reacted to this provocation and inflicted serious injury to the passenger.  It was emphasised that this incident occurred whilst the applicant was in a position of trust and carrying out a journey in a licensed vehicle.

 

11.  The applicant explained during the hearing that he made a mistake and understood that the way he reacted was unacceptable, he stated that he still lived with the events of the incident every day.  The applicant further explained that he had 16 years incident-free in taxis prior to the event and that he did not intend to cause the passenger any harm.  The applicant also stated that he was hardworking and had learned from the incident, he had not let it impact him and had continued to progress in employment.

 

12.  The applicant stated that the offence was reduced from ‘GBH with intent’ to ‘Inflicting GBH’ by the Judge at the hearing.  The applicant advised that the victim was thought to have fractures but once the swelling had gone down, it was confirmed that this was not the case.

 

13.  The Committee determined that this was an extremely serious offence and one that was carried out whilst the applicant was in a position of trust.  The Committee considered that the applicant reacted with violence when provoked by a passenger, which was exactly what the Policy stated should not happen.

 

14.  The Policy was clear where it stated a period of at least ten years free of conviction should have elapsed for an offence of violence against the person, which was what the applicant was convicted of.  The sentence was completed on 26 January 2019 when the suspended sentence expired and, therefore, it had only been around six and a half years since the completion of the sentence.

 

15.  The Committee considered the necessity to protect the safety of passengers and ensure public safety and, therefore, for the reasons given above could not be satisfied the applicant was a fit and proper person to be licenced as a Hackney Carriage driver in Middlesbrough.

 

16.  Despite the applicant’s representations, the Committee concluded that there were no good or exceptional reasons to depart from the Policy, and refused to grant the licence.

 

17.  If the applicant was aggrieved by the decision he may appeal to a Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of the notice of the decision.  The local Magistrates for the area was Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates Court, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough, TS1 2AS.

 

18.  If the applicant did appeal the decision and the appeal was dismissed by the Magistrates Court, the Council would claim its costs in defending its decision from the applicant which could be in the region of £1,000.