Agenda item

To review an existing Private Hire Drivers Licence.

The Licensing and Compliance Manager gave a summary of the report which requested that members determine whether the Driver was “Fit and Proper” to continue to hold a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence.

 

In response to questions from the Panel, the officer confirmed that the Driver had returned their Private Hire Driver Licence to the Licensing Team, following the notice of suspension. The date of the offense was also confirmed.

 

The Driver addressed the Panel and provided an account around the circumstances in which they were charged with the assault of an emergency worker. They explained that the offence took place during a period of mental health crisis.

 

He had pled not guilty in court to the charge of assault, and it was subsequently downgraded to assault of an emergency worker. He was advised by his legal representation to pay the fine as the conviction would be spent after a year. He was also advised against appealing, as the legal costs would outweigh the cost of the fine.

 

In response to questions from the Panel, the Driver confirmed that the police had been called to his home as he had self-harmed. He was initially charged with Assault by Beating; however this was downgraded by the Magistrates Courts once the police body cam footage was reviewed.

 

After the trial, the Driver’s solicitor had advised him that once the fine had been paid, the charge would not show up on anything after a year. He was not informed that it would still affect his DBS.

 

The Driver also confirmed that he did not have any orders against him under the Mental Health Act.

 

The Driver summarised that he wished that it hadn’t happen and had since received help through the NHS Mental Health Services. He said that they had never had any complaints or problems in their driving job, and his operator was looking forward to having him back.

 

Meeting adjourned 13:23

 

The meeting reconvened at 13:48

 

DECISION NOTICE

 

The matter before the Panel today is for a review of HC/PHV driver’s licence.  The licence was administratively suspended in April 2023 and today we are required to decide whether that suspension should be lifted, enabling the Driver to return to driving or whether that licence should be revoked with immediate effect in the interests of public safety. Our choice is binary in this case and most important of all, we are charged with determining whether the Driver is considered ‘fit and proper’ to continue holding the licence.

 

We first consider the provisions of 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.

 

This responsibility is ongoing and whether the Driver remains a fit and proper person is what we must decide today.

 

S61 goes on to state:

A district council may suspend or revoke a driver’s licence for:

(a)            That since the grant of the licence he has-

(i)              Been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence: or

(ii)             Been convicted of an offence under or has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1847 or of this part of the Act: or

(b)            Any other reasonable cause.

 

In the event of a licence being revoked a driver has the right of appeal to a Magistrates Court

 

Para 1.3 of this Council’s Suitability policy is clear:

 

“If a licence holder falls short of the fit and proper standard at any time the licence should be revoked or not renewed on application to do so”

 

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. We record we have read with care the information supplied by the Driver’s legal representation, though we note the offence took place in 2022 not 2023 as he states in his letter.

 

The facts of the matter are as follows:-

The Council requires all existing licensed drivers to have an active subscription to the Disclosure and Barring Service Update Service, meaning that the Licensing Team are notified of any addition of new information on a driver’s criminal record. Following such notification being received against the Driver’s record, Licensing Officers issued a suspension of his Private Hire Driver’s Licence effective from April 2023, due to the unknown circumstances at that time of the reason for the information being recorded. A copy of that letter is before us and upon receipt thereof, the Driver contacted the Licensing Team to discuss the circumstances. He was advised to provide correspondence from the Court together with anything else that might assist the Council. The Driver had been represented by solicitors and Counsel in the Court proceedings. We are advised, however, that Taxi and Private Hire driving is a profession exempted under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, meaning that 'spent’ offences can still be considered in decision making.

The DBS certificate was issued in July 2023 and is before us. It states that the Driver was convicted of ‘common assault of an emergency worker’ and issued a fine of £1,500. This largely corresponds with the detail given in the email from his legal team and the account given by the Driver to Licensing Officers in which he said he had ‘bitten’ a Police Officer.

The Uttlesford Driver Suitability Policy references that ‘’Where an applicant has a conviction of an offence of violence, or connected with any offence of violence, a licence will not be granted until at least 10 years have elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed.’’ Though this specifically addresses new applicants, our duty to ensure drivers remain fit and proper persons is ongoing, and we may regard it as being guidance in making our decision on this matter. Existing drivers are expected to conform to high personal and professional standards and a conviction for assault, particularly one upon an emergency worker, naturally raises a question as to whether the Driver remains a ‘fit and proper’ person to retain his licence. We note that the identity of the victim is considered to be an aggravating factor that justifies an increased sentence and we note the penalties to which the Driver was subjected are entirely punitive in nature.

There is currently an indefinite suspension of the Driver’s licence in place until our determination is made. Whilst the issuing of a further suspension would in theory be an option, it would not be a pragmatic in this case and instead the Panel are guided to consider either the lifting of the current suspension thus allowing the Driver to return to work, or the revocation of the licence with immediate effect. On that basis he would not be allowed to resume driving. We repeat, our decision must be made on the basis of whether we consider him to be a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold the licence based on the information presented before us.

Furthermore, in reference to existing licence holders, point 2.41 of the policy further states:-

 

‘As public trust and confidence in the overall safety and integrity of the system of taxi licensing is vital, where a licence holder has received a conviction for any category of offences detailed above, their licence(s) will be revoked’.

 

The Driver has been convicted of such an offence and the DBS certificate records that there were aggravating features.

 

We have read all the papers before us most carefully and we have listened to what the Driver has told us. We limit the details in order to protect his privacy given the circumstances. The offence took place in April of last year during a period of mental health crisis. He had the benefit of legal representation in Court on his not guilty plea, though sadly he was wrongly advised regarding the bringing of an appeal. For the purposes of the HC/PHV driver regime a conviction is never spent.

 

However, we are charged with the protection of the public, and this was an aggravated offence. We do not recite the details but this was an offence that Parliament considered should attract an enhanced penalty given the aggravating features surrounding it. The Driver did not plead guilty to a lesser charge, one charge was substituted for another given certain elements of the original charge could not be satisfied, but he proceeded with a contested trial and was duly convicted.

 

In reaching our decision, we are mindful of the provisions of the Council’s Suitability Policy, a copy of which is before us. It states that the overriding aim of any Licensing Authority when carrying out its functions relating to the licensing of Hackney or Private Hire Drivers, Vehicle Proprietors and Operators must be the protection of the public and others who use (or can be affected by) Hackney Carriage and Private Hire services.

We agree.

 

Appendix A is more specific, and we quote the relevant provisions here:

 

2.2 It is important to recognise that once a licence has been granted, there is a continuing requirement on the part of the licensee to maintain their safety and suitability. The licensing authority has powers to take action against the holder of all types of licence (drivers, vehicle and operators) and it must be understood that any convictions or other actions on the part of the licensee which would have prevented them being granted a licence on initial application will lead to that licence being revoked.

 

2.7 These guidelines do not replace the duty of the licensing authority to refuse to grant a licence where they are not satisfied that the applicant or licensee is a fit and proper person….

 

 

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.

 

 

We take this responsibility seriously. 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 a person remains 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 revoke the licence.

We have carefully considered whether the Driver remains a fit and proper person to hold an HC/PHV driver’s licence and sadly we have been driven to conclude that he is not. We have heard what he has told us but this was an offence of violence in circumstances Parliament considered merit an increased penalty. He has produced no correspondence from his operator, we have seen no medical evidence, and he did not report the fact of the charge to the Licensing Team. We are aware of the backlogs in the Court system and make no comment.

in all the circumstances we regard ourselves as having no alternative but to revoke his licence. We regard what he did as being so serious that revocation must be with immediate effect on the grounds of public safety.

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. During that period and until the determination of an appeal he would normally be allowed to continue driving. However, in this case his licence has been revoked with immediate effect on the grounds of public safety and this period of grace does not apply.

The Driver will receive a letter/email from the Licensing Department with a copy of our decision and explaining his appeal rights.