Minutes:
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
Principal Licensing Officer presented a summary of the report stating that the
applicant appeared before Members due to the convictions detailed at 1) to 3)
in the submitted report and confirmed that the applicant had disclosed his
convictions on his application form.
The
applicant was interviewed by a Licensing Officer on 7 July 2025 when he
provided explanations in relation to the offences at 1) to 3) and confirmed
that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware.
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 addressed the Committee in support
of his application.
It
was confirmed that there were no 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 Licence, Ref No: 26/25, be refused, 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 refuse to grant the application for a
Private Hire Vehicle 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 was convicted on 19 December 2017
of Battery under S39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The applicant was originally sentenced to a
six month conditional discharge, £85.00 costs and £20.00 victim surcharge.
6.
The applicant was convicted on 6 May 2018 of
driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol on 5 February 2018 under S5(1)(a)
Road Traffic Act 1988. The applicant’s
conditional discharge was subsequently varied and the applicant was sentenced,
in total, for both this offence and the battery offence, to a £60.00 fine, a
£295.00 fine, £85.00 costs, £30 victim surcharge and disqualified from driving
for 20 months. The applicant completed a
course which reduced the driving disqualification by 20 weeks.
7.
The policy on convictions was set out at
Appendix G, Policy on the Relevance of Convictions, Cautions, Reprimands,
Warnings, Complaints and Character.
8.
The Policy was clear, it stated that a licence
would normally be refused if an applicant had been convicted of 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 convictions has elapsed since the
completion of any sentence imposed.
9.
The Policy further stated that an applicant who
had a conviction for drink driving must show at least seven years free from
conviction since the completion of any sentence or driving ban imposed before
their application would be considered.
10. The
applicant was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer on 7 July
2025. During interview, the applicant
stated that regarding the first offence of battery, he and his wife were very
drunk and arguing in the town centre.
The applicant stated that his wife became aggressive so he took hold of
her upper arms to stop her lashing out and his wife flagged down a Police
Officer. The applicant was subsequently arrested and charged, despite his wife
withdrawing her support of the prosecution.
11. With
regard to the second offence, the applicant stated that he had bumped into some
friends in Middlesbrough town centre and foolishly drunk five pints of lager
with them and then agreed to drive his friend to Stockton town centre. The applicant drove to Stockton at around
midnight and was pulled over by Police as he had failed to indicate when
turning into a road. The Police
subsequently smelt alcohol on him and his breathalyser test showed that he had
blown 73, meaning he was two times over the legal limit. He was subsequently arrested and charged.
12. At
the Committee hearing, the applicant stated that he had not offended since 2018
and that he and his wife have subsequently split up, he stated he has custody
of his children.
13. The
Committee considered the two offences and concluded that both were extremely
serious. 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 is what the applicant was convicted of, therefore, this ends in
December 2027.
14. The
Committee, for the reasons set out above, could not be satisfied that the
applicant was a fit and proper person, or safe and suitable, to be licenced as
a Private Hire Vehicle driver in Middlesbrough.
15. The
Committee’s decision to refuse to grant the licence was in accordance with the
Policy and the Committee considered there were no good or exceptional reasons
to depart from it on this occasion.
16. 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 Court for the area is: Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates Court, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough, TS1 2AS.
17. If the applicant does 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.