Agenda item

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

The Chairman moved Item 4 forward in the proceedings because the driver was in attendance.

The Chairman introduced the Panel and explained procedure to those present.

The Licensing Officer gave a summary of the report.

The applicant had applied for the grant of a private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence on 30 October 2018. As part of the process, the driver submitted an enhanced DBS certificate, which showed 10 convictions dating from 9 July 1965 to 13 December 1977. The applicant did not meet licensing standards due to a conviction during this time which had led to a custodial sentence.

The driver said he had turned his life around following his custodial sentence and had held down a stable job for 35 years and raised a family. He had retired earlier this year but now wanted to go back to work as a taxi driver so he could continue to contribute to the community.

Members were asked to consider whether the driver was a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a licence despite not meeting the Council’s licensing standards.

At 10.35, the Committee retired to make its decision.

At 10.45, the Committee returned.

The decision was read to the driver.

Decision Notice

The driver’s application dated 30^th October 2018 is for a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Applicant’s licence.  If successful, he has an offer of employment from 24 x 7 Ltd.

The driver’s application disclosed a 1990 speeding offence in respect of which he is a rehabilitated person. However, an enhanced DBS check obtained by 24 x 7 which he handed to the Council also disclosed ten historic convictions upon dates between 1965 and 1972, some of which were juvenile offences. The certificate was dated 11^th October  2018 and confirms that the applicant does not meet Point 5 of the Council’s Licensing Standards, which 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 Enhanced DBS Check revealed the following matters:-

1.  9/7/65 – Larceny – Conditional Discharge – Islington JJ
2. 26/8/66 – Larceny – Attendance – Islington JJ
3. 27/10/69 – Theft – Fined £5.00 – Billericay JJ
4. 16/6/70 – TWOC, no driving licence, no insurance – 2 years probation/2 year disqualification – Southend Borough JJ
5. 11.10.71 – Theft – Fined £50.00 – Billericay JJ
6. 31/8/72 – TWOC, no licence, no insurance – 12 months disqualification, fined £50 – Thames JJ.
7. 1/9/72 – obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception – fined £75, plus legal aid contribution and costs – Southend Borough JJ
8. 16/11/72 – theft x 1, burglary and theft x 2 – Borstal training – Southend Crown Court
9. 4/8/76 – ABH, TWOC, no insurance, failure to provide a specimen, minor road traffic offence x 2 – 120 hours community service, 12 months disqualification, £75 fine and costs – Rochford JJ.
10. 13/12/77 – minor road traffic offence x 2, driving whilst disqualified, no insurance – 3 months imprisonment, fined £170  - Grays JJ. Varied on appeal to Chelmsford Crown Court.

Though he is a rehabilitated person in respect of all these offences under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, this legislation does not apply to all scenarios, and included among these is the holding of Private Hire and Hackney Carriage drivers licences.

In support of his application, the applicant says that all these offences took place many years ago, his life lacked purpose, and as far as the most serious offence, the burglary, is concerned, he was part of a bad group of people at the time.  The last of these convictions was in 1977 and since his release from Borstal he took steps to change his life. He remained in work at a tractor plant in Basildon for 35 years, married and raised a family and now has four grandchildren. He has an offer of work from 24 x 7 Ltd on school runs if he is granted a licence today.

Unfortunately in aggregate, these are serious matters and although the overwhelming majority of them took place years ago, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not apply to proceedings before this Committee.

However, we have listened to what the applicant has to say and note that he has the support of his employer. We are satisfied that he has turned his life around, and accordingly we grant this application, and he will receive the paperwork in due course.