Agenda item

To determine a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver's application.

The Enforcement Officer gave a summary of the report.

The applicant met the Council’s licensing standards for drivers. However, the Environmental Health Manager Protection had felt it necessary to refer the application to Committee because the applicant had received a Council caution for a licensing offence. This was in relation to his failure to disclose three convictions of common assault, for which he then accepted a caution for making a false statement to obtain a licence.

The applicant said he accepted that he had made a false statement, but wanted to be a taxi driver to help others. He had been a retired dentist for five years, and the cautions for assault all related to the one offence. This had been when his wife reported him for throwing a bottle of water at her. He had in fact simply intended to throw it to her. He accepted the caution so that she was not charged for wasting police time.

The applicant confirmed he still lived with his wife and that he had not been drinking at the time of the offence.

At 10.55, the Committee retired to make its decision.

At 11.20, the Committee returned.

The decision was read to the applicant.

DECISION NOTICE

The applicant’s application dated 7^th February 2019 is for a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence.  If successful , he intends to carry out school contract work with 24 x 7 Ltd.

The applicant’s application disclosed a number of matters. We have a copy of this document before us.

Question 10 asks ‘Has your licence ever been endorsed for a fixed penalty offence within the last 4 years?’   The answer given was ‘yes.’

Question 12 asks ‘Have you ever been convicted of any offence (including motoring offences) including spent and unspent convictions in any Court or received a police caution?’  The applicant disclosed that he had been convicted of drink driving on 2006.   He also disclosed that he had attended a speed awareness course in 2018. However, his enhanced DBS check, also included within our papers, shows other matters, namely:-

Conviction 1 dated 14 November 2006, was for an offence of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol on 03 November 2006. The applicant was given a community order for 12 months, subject to a supervision requirement throughout, ordered to attend a drink impaired drivers’ programme and was ordered to do 180 hours unpaid work.   He was also disqualified from driving for 36 months and ordered to pay costs of £70.

Conviction 2 dated 28 March 2007 was for an offence of breaching a community order on 14 February 2007.   This resulted in his previous supervision order being extended by 3 months and he was ordered to pay costs of £35.

The DBS check also showed three cautions, all for common assault.   Two were issued on 08 April 2016, for offences taking place on 04 April 2016 and the other was issued on 09 April 2016, for an offence on 08 April 2016.

We are aware that making a false statement to obtain a licence is an offence under S57(3) of the 1976 Act and that this offence carries a fine of up to £1000 upon conviction. The DBS check revealed a number of serious matters, and the applicant was interviewed under caution in respect of them on 22^nd February 2019. He provided the following explanation.

Firstly, he confirmed that he completed the application form by himself, and read the concluding declaration fluently. He then explained that the conviction in 2007 in respect of breaching the terms of a community order was related to the drink driving conviction.  He was ill on one occasion when he was scheduled to attend to perform unpaid work under the order, did not attend and did not have a doctor’s note, as he did not know he needed one.

In relation to the cautions he did not recall them when he completed the form and did not know that he had to disclose them as the incident out of which they arose took place in his home.   He explained that he and his wife were sleeping in separate rooms: he went into her room to give her a glass water bottle.   He threw it towards her and it accidentally hit her on the leg.   He did not realise until afterwards that she had reported the matter to the Police. He produced copies of the paperwork in relation to the two cautions for common assault. Included  was a form called an ‘MG4F – Refused Charge’ for an alleged offence of rape of a woman 16 years of age or over.

It showed that the applicant was arrested and the case investigated but it was decided no crime took place and the victim had subsequently confirmed to the police that no offence took place.  The applicant stated that he believed his wife made these allegations up in order to get the Police to attend and when they sought to involve the medical examiner she admitted nothing happened. He further stated that he and his wife are still married and live together.

He also stated that he wants to do the job to help the community.

It was decided to deal with the matter by way of formal caution and this was administered on 28^th March. The applicant therefore does meet the Council’s Licensing Standards for drivers, but because of the nature of the offences officers felt it appropriate to refer the matter to ourselves.  We have read the papers before us and have heard from the applicant. Unfortunately we do not believe that he has told us the whole truth; he has attempted to minimise the seriousness of his drink/driving conviction and nor do we believe that he has told us everything about the events of April 2016. He said, for example, that he threw the water bottle at his wife, not to her. This concerns us, and we are not satisfied that he has shown insight into his past history.

We note that if his application is successful the applicant will be carrying out school contract work.  This means in practice he would be transporting potentially some of the most vulnerable members of society, namely disabled children and we are mindful that the offences revealed on his DBS check were alcohol related and of violence and though they are now spent the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to proceedings before this Committee, and we cannot ignore them.

Furthermore, the applicant understanding of English is good and he cannot have failed to understand the application form. Our function is the protection of the public and we have concerns regarding these offences: one is an offence of driving while four times  over the limit and the other is a violent offence.  Offending committed in a domestic setting is still as serious as any other offending, and there remains a risk to vulnerable passengers.

We therefore refuse this application. The applicant has a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court against this decision and he will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining this.