Agenda item

To determine an application for a Private Hire Drivers Licence.

The Licensing Support Officer gave a summary of their report which requested that members determine an application for a Private Hire Drivers Licence.

The applicant addressed the Panel and provided a detailed account of the circumstances around the matters which had been disclosed by the police on his DBS, including a serious allegation of sexual misconduct made against him, a custodial sentence under the Misuse of Drugs Act and a caution for Common Assault.

In response to questions from the Panel, the applicant confirmed that he had previously been convicted for the possession of cannabis and served a short jail sentence for this. He explained that the Common Assault charge related to swearing in a heated argument. 

Further questions were asked in regards to the events surrounding the serious allegation of sexual misconduct made against him and the Driver responded with his version of events.

Meeting adjourned at 15:18

The meeting reconvened at 15:34

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is an application for a new HC/PHV driver’s licence. If he is successful today he has an offer of engagement.

This application is made under Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. S 51 thereof states :

51(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of the Act, a district council shall, on the receipt of an application from any person for the grant to that person of a licence to drive private hire vehicles, grant to that person a driver’s licence:

Provided that a district council shall not grant a licence

(a)            Unless they are satisfied

(i)              That the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a driver’s licence.

It is this we must decide today.

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s report in this case, a copy of which has been served on the Driver and we have also seen, as has he, the background documents annexed thereto. These reveal a number of very serious matters, including a serious allegation of sexual misconduct made against him, a custodial sentence under the Misuse of Drugs Act and a caution for common assault. He also held a licence issued by Transport for London which was revoked by them because of the indecent assault allegation we have previously referred to, plus non-compliance matters.  None of these were listed in his application and we are specifically reminded that the Rehabilitation of Offenders legislation does not apply to taxi and PHV driving.

In considering this application, we are mindful of the provisions of the Council’s Suitability Policy, a copy of which is before us. Appendix A contains the relevant details, and we quote them here:

2.5 Generally, where a person has more than one conviction, this will raise serious questions about their safety and suitability. The licensing authority is looking for safe and suitable individuals, and once a pattern or trend of repeated offending is apparent, a licence will not be granted or renewed.

2.9 A driver has direct responsibility for the safety of their passengers, direct responsibility for the safety of other road users and significant control over passengers who are in the vehicle. As those passengers may be alone, and may also be vulnerable, any previous convictions or unacceptable behaviour will weigh heavily against a licence being granted or retained.

2.10 As stated above, where an applicant has more than one conviction showing a pattern or tendency irrespective of time since the convictions, serious consideration will need to be given as to whether they are a safe and suitable person.

2.15 Possession of a weapon

Where an applicant has a conviction for possession of a weapon or any other weapon related offence, a licence will not be granted until at least 7 years have elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed.

2.18 Dishonesty

Where an applicant has a conviction for any offence of dishonesty, or any offence where dishonesty is an element of the offence, a licence will not be granted until at least 7 years have elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed.

2.20 Drugs

Where an applicant has a conviction for possession of drugs, or related to the possession of drugs, a licence will not be granted until at least 5 years have elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed. In these circumstances, any applicant will also have to undergo drugs testing at their own expense to demonstrate that they are not using controlled drugs.

A history of dishonesty, indecency or violence is regarded by this Council as being a very serious matter and it is to the question of honesty that we now turn.

Put very briefly, applicants to the Council must complete an application form. It should be done by them personally and it contains a declaration of truth. On the Driver’s application form the answer given to question 5, namely ‘Have you ever had a licence to drive a hackney carriage and/or private hire vehicle refused, revoked or suspended?’ had been ‘NO’

However, on checking the NR3 database, details of the revocation referred to above were revealed and TfL provided further information in response to a request. All of this information is before us and has been served upon the Driver.

Nevertheless UDC driver conditions policy states:

            Dishonesty

            2.3       Any dishonesty by any applicant or other person on the applicant’s behalf which is discovered to have occurred in any part of any application process (e.g. failure to declare convictions, false names or addresses, falsified references) will result in a licence being refused, or if already granted, revoked and may result in prosecution.

We have also had the opportunity of hearing from the Driver and from the Case Officer and have read the papers before us most carefully. The Driver gave us a detailed account of the events surrounding the allegation of sexual misconduct. That account does not correspond adequately with the facts set out in the police information set out in the DBS certificate, and in response to our questioning further extremely disturbing discrepancies came to light. The same evasiveness surrounded his replies to our questions regarding the other matters set out in the DBS certificate, namely the  Misuse of Drugs Act conviction and the common assault caution. If events had been as stated by the Driver then those would not have been the charges brought and he would not have received a custodial sentence. These matters worry us greatly, and unlike the criminal courts, if we have any doubts about the safety and suitability of a licence applicant then the answer is clear.

We are also mindful of the provisions of the Council’s Suitability Policy, a copy of which is before us. Appendix A contains the relevant details, and we quote them here:

2.5 Generally, where a person has more than one conviction, this will raise serious questions about their safety and suitability. The licensing authority is looking for safe and suitable individuals, and once a pattern or trend of repeated offending is apparent, a licence will not be granted or renewed.

2.9 A driver has direct responsibility for the safety of their passengers, direct responsibility for the safety of other road users and significant control over passengers who are in the vehicle. As those passengers may be alone, and may also be vulnerable, any previous convictions or unacceptable behaviour will weigh heavily against a licence being granted or retained.

2.10 As stated above, where an applicant has more than one conviction showing a pattern or tendency irrespective of time since the convictions, serious consideration will need to be given as to whether they are a safe and suitable person.

The primary function of this Committee is the protection of the travelling public. The legislation makes this clear as does the case law and all authority in the area. Our role is to determine whether or not an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a HC/PHV licence and if we consider that he is not, then our duty is clear – we should refuse the application.

We have listened to the Driver and we have read the papers carefully. There are too many unanswered or inadequately answered questions and we cannot trust what the Driver has told us. We prefer the police information. We also remember that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to matters before us, and in short, we are not prepared to take the risk of licensing the Driver.

We have therefore had to consider whether the Driver is a fit and proper person to hold an HC/PHV driver’s licence and we have to conclude that he is not. There is a history of offending that troubles us greatly, the revocation of a previous licence and the failure to carefully read a document containing a statement of truth; he was untruthful about an matter that went to the root of his application, hence that application was  made dishonestly. We therefore refuse this application.

The Driver has a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court against this sanction and this right must be exercised within 21 days of the date of our decision. He will receive a letter/email from the Licensing Department explaining this but he should be aware the Court does not have the power to grant a licence: only the Council can.