Agenda item

The Director of Adult Social Care and Health Integration submitted an exempt report in connection with an application for a Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 08/21, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.

 

The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed.  The driver, accompanied by his legal representative, was in attendance at the meeting and verified his name and address and confirmed that he had received a copy of the report and understood its contents. 

 

The Licensing Manager presented a summary of the report in relation to the application.  It was highlighted that applicant was previously licensed with Middlesbrough Council in 2006 but his licence was revoked in 2018 following his conviction for the offence at 2) in the report.  The applicant appealed the decision, however, he was unsuccessful. 

 

The applicant now appeared with a fresh application which was due to be considered a the previous Licensing Committee, however, Members deferred consideration due to a request for further information in relation to the revocation decision and from the Council’s LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer).

 

The applicant was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer on 27 August 2021 when he confirmed his previous explanations for the offences at 1) and 2) in the submitted report.

 

At the Licensing Committee in June 2018, Members also considered further information provided by Cleveland Police in relation circumstances leading to the applicant’s conviction, attached at Appendix 1.  This information raised safeguarding concerns and subsequent enquiries with the Council’s LADO revealed Social Services involvement. A meeting with the LADO was held in April 2018 and was also considered by the Committee at the time.  A copy was attached at Appendix 2.

 

On 16 November 2021, further enquiries were made with the LADO and it was confirmed that there had been no Social Services involvement since 2018.

 

A copy of the Licensing Committee’s decision made in June 2018 to revoke the applicant’s licence was attached at Appendix 3.

 

The report also contained information taken from Council records showing that the applicant was issued with warnings in relation to four separate complaints in 2009, 2016 and two in 2017.

 

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

 

The applicant’s legal representative addressed the Committee in support of the application.  The legal representative and the applicant responded to questions from Members and the Council’s legal representative.  

 

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and applicant, his legal representative and Officers of the Council, other than representatives of the Council’s Legal and Democratic Services, 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 Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref 08/21 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 combined hackney carriage and 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, Policy Guidance to Applicants, Licensed Drivers and Members of the Licensing Committee which came into force on the 1 November 2019 (“the Policy”), the report and representations made by the applicant and his representative.

 

3.    The Application was considered on its own particular facts and on its merits.

 

Decision

 

4.    After carefully considering all of the information, the Licensing Committee decided to refuse to grant the application for a combined hackney carriage and 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.

 

Reasons

 

5.    Licensed drivers had close regular contact with passenger and were in an extreme position of trust, it was a high risk environment for passengers and the primary and overriding objective of the Committee was to protect the public.

 

6.    For an isolated conviction of common assault, the Policy required an incident-free period of at least three years since the completion of the sentence imposed.  If there had been more than one conviction of an offence like assault there must be an incident free period of five to ten years.

 

7.    However, the Policy also confirmed that a person who responded with violence when provoked would not be suitable to be granted a licence.  It confirmed that the Council deemed incidents of domestic violence to be extremely serious because if an individual was prepared to assault an individual in a domestic or home environment, then they would have concerns over the person’s ability to maintain their temper when working in an environment dealing with members of the public.

 

8.    Under the Policy, multiple incidents were likely to give greater cause for concern and may demonstrate an inappropriate pattern of behaviour which showed an applicant was unsuitable to be granted a licence. The Committee must assess the offending on the whole rather than separately in order to assess the suitability of an applicant.

 

9.    The applicant was convicted of Common Assault on 12 March 2018.  He was sentenced to a 12 month Community Order with 80 hours unpaid work.  The applicant received a restraining order for two years.  Although the applicant’s solicitor confirmed that the unpaid work would have been completed quickly and the Community Order would not have been required, therefore, for 12 months, the sentence in accordance with the documentation was 12 months and, therefore, expired on 11 March 2019.  A restraining order protecting another person from the applicant was in place until 11 March 2020. Taken as a whole the application was still within the minimum three year incident-free period required by the Policy for a single isolated conviction for assault.

 

10.  However, the Committee considered that there were other incidents and the assault was not a one-off isolated out of character incident.  A previous Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) investigation report stated there was a significant history of domestic violence and intimidation since 2016 with social workers being involved and supervision required for the applicant to access his children. 

 

11.  The Committee noted the representations that the applicant had previously been licensed for a long period since 2006 without complaint from passengers until his licence was revoked as a result of the conviction.  However, during the life of that licence, whilst being in such a position of trust and having the privilege of a licence, he acted violently which resulted in a serious sentence of a requirement of unpaid work.

 

12.  The Committee was also concerned that the court found it necessary to protect another person from the applicant for a period of two years.

 

13.  In addition, although in no way as serious as the assault, the applicant did not have a clean record when he was licensed as there were other issues which warranted three warnings.  The applicant also had a previous old conviction for dishonesty and whilst the Committee considered his explanation for the offence did not match up to the sentence imposed, it did consider the conviction too old to be relevant.

 

14.  The Committee considered all of the representations including the applicant confirming he had moved on with his life, had a new wife, did not see he ex-wife and that there had been no further issues and the issues related to the relationship only with his ex-wife which he regretted.

 

15.  However, the Committee considered the applicant was not fit and proper to be licensed because of his domestic abuse to his ex-wife and for the reasons set out above.  The decision was in accordance with the Policy and there were no good reasons to depart from it.  The report noted the Government’s particularly serious view of violent offences by proposing a 10 years conviction free period standard.

 

16.  If the applicant was aggrieved by the decision he may appeal to the Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough within 21 days from the date of the notice of the decision.

 

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 in excess of £750.