Agenda item

To determine a private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence.

The Chairman introduced the Panel and explained procedure to the driver.

The Panel considered the Licensing Officer’s report.

The Council’s Licensing Standards state that an applicant must have ‘no criminal convictions for an offence of dishonesty, indecency or violence in respect of which a custodial sentence (including a suspended custodial sentence) was imposed.’ The driver did not meet the criteria. Members were therefore asked to consider whether the driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence despite the fact he did not meet licensing standards.   

In response to a Member question, the driver said the marriage to his first wife had not survived. Her relationship with her father had completely broken down and she later would have problems with drugs. The driver said he had been given custody of the children following their divorce.

The Solicitor asked whether the wife had given evidence for the prosecution against the driver.

The driver said she had not.

The Solicitor asked whether the European Court prosecution was brought by the father, or by the police.

The driver said it was a private legal action and the police had no involvement in bringing the case to court.

At 10.20am, the panel retired to make its decision.

At 10.40am, the panel returned.

The Chairman read out the decision.

Decision:

The driver’s application dated 5th April 2018 is for a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence.  He is already employed by Dollar/Thrifty as a delivery driver and if successful, his responsibilities could be expanded to cover all aspects of that company’s operations.

One of the questions on the Council’s application form asks applicants to list all convictions (including motoring offences) both spent and unspent and any police cautions. The driver did not complete this, but told the Licensing Officer that there had been a conviction, but that it was of a sensitive nature and he was not sure how it would be described on the DBS certificate or whether it would come up. He provided the Licensing Officer with full details of the offence and given the circumstances it was agreed that the Council would wait for the DBS certificate to come back, though the driver was advised that given the nature of the offence it was likely that his application would be referred to Committee.

The certificate disclosed two historic convictions, namely a Forgery and Counterfeiting Act conviction in January 1991 for which the driver received a conditional discharge, and  one for intercourse with a girl under 16 under S6 Sexual Offences Act 1956 dated 5th March 1999 for which he received a sentence of imprisonment of 9 months suspended over 2 years. This meant that he does not meet Point 5 of the Council’s Licensing Standards, which state that a driver must have:-

“No criminal convictions for an offence of dishonesty, indecency or violence in respect of which a custodial sentence (including a suspended custodial sentence) was imposed.”

The driver was unable to attend a meeting with the Licensing Officer on 19 June due to a family illness, but did submit a written statement in support of his application which is before us and which we have read carefully. In his statement the driver explains that the offence took place in 1990 when the driver was 19 years old and his girlfriend was two weeks from her 16th birthday.  He was in the Royal Navy at the time and would spend his leave at his girlfriend’s house with her father’s permission. He and his girlfriend had sexual intercourse against her father’s wishes and when he found out he decided to press charges.

The case was dismissed by the Magistrates Court on the basis that the father had allowed them to co-habit. The driver and his girlfriend married and had two children, but in 1997 his father-in-law informed them that he would be pursuing the case and in 1998 he applied to the European Court which led to the conviction in 1999. At no time did the driver’s then wife support her father’s actions and the two are completely estranged as a result. The information we have around the precise legalities of the events of 1999 is limited but we understand that the plea of autrefois acquit would have been available to him; the 1999 Court action was privately brought and the authorities were not involved having presumably accepted the Magistrates’ original verdict.

After leaving the Navy in 1992 the driver returned to further education and obtained a BTEC Diploma in IT which led to him gaining employment in security installation as an operations manager. Since then he has worked in a series of positions of trust and is currently studying a BSc (Hons) in computing and IT.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not apply to all scenarios, and included among these is the holding of Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Drivers licences. However, we have heard from the driver and he has answered our questions frankly. These are serious matters and although they are historic and the driver accepts attitudes have changed, plus we also accept he has held positions of trust since, nevertheless the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not apply to proceedings before this Committee.

However, we have listened to what the driver has to say and note that on its facts, this is an unusual case and accordingly we grant this application, and he will receive the paperwork in due course. We are giving him his chance, and we hope that he will take full advantage of it and not abuse our trust.  We do not expect to see him before us again.