Agenda item

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

The Enforcement Officer gave a summary of the report.

Question 12 of the application form 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 had answered ‘no.’ However an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check revealed three convictions.Making a false statement to obtain a licence is an offence under section 57(3) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

On attending an interview with the Enforcement Officer, it was noted that the applicant struggled to understand the application form and had had help from his cousin to fill it in.

The applicant said he had been experiencing financial hardship and difficulties with his ex-wife and was looking to support his son. He had misunderstood the questions on the application form. His health had not been good, but he needed to get on and work. He had a clean license at the moment.

At 2.55 the Committee retired to make its decision.

At 3.15 the Committee returned.

The decision was read to the applicant.

DECISION NOTICE –

The applicant’s application dated 29^th January 2019 is for a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence.  If successful he hopes to work for 24 x 7 Ltd.

However, his application disclosed a number of matters. We have a copy of the form before us.

Question 12 of the application form 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 answer given was ‘no.’

Part of the licensing process requires all drivers to undergo an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check and the applicant’s check was dated 22 February 2019 and revealed a number of matters including offences of dishonesty and what are popularly known as “hate crimes”:

Conviction 1 dated 05 May 2011, is for three offences of failing to notify a change of circumstances affecting entitlement to benefit. The applicant was given a suspended imprisonment for three months suspended for 12 months, a 12 month supervision order and a five month curfew with electronic tagging.   He was also ordered to pay prosecution costs of £1469.19.

Conviction 2 dated 14 December 2011 was for a further two offences.  One offence was commission of a further offence during the operational period of a suspended sentence and the other offence was in respect of racially/religiously aggravated harassment/alarm/distress – words/writing, ie a “hate crime”.   His suspended sentence of imprisonment was extended by six months to 18 months in total, plus he was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs of £45.

The final conviction on 28 August 2014 was for two offences.   One offence was commission of a further offence during the operational period of a suspended sentence and he was fined £100 for this matter.  

The other offence was making a false statement/representation to obtain benefit.   For this offence, the applicant was given a 4 month suspended prison sentence suspended for 12 months, a 12 month supervision order, a four month curfew a victim surcharge of £80 and costs of £1000.

These are all very serious matters and the Rehabilitation of Offenders legislation does not, because of the public protection function of the licensing process, extend to proceedings before this Committee. 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 applicant attended an interview under caution on 14 March 2019, at the Council Offices in Saffron Walden which was conducted by two Enforcement Offices.   He was accompanied by a cousin who was there to assist with interpretation and who had completed the application form on his behalf. The applicant confirmed that he signed the form but his cousin had completed the application form.  In the circumstances the cousin was then asked to leave the room: The applicant was able to read the declaration on the application form to the Officers.

The applicant explained that he asked his cousin to complete the application form because his reading and writing in English was not very good.   He had only known this cousin for 3 to 4 months. When he was shown the application form, the applicant claimed that he did not understand what spent convictions were in relation to question 12.   He was not sure if his cousin read the question out to him before his cousin answered it: however, he thought it meant “had he ever been to prison”, and he then claimed not to understand the question despite saying that he had just understood it.

When the applicant was shown the DBS certificate he thought that they were not criminal offences and did not know he had to tell the Council about them. He stated that he had applied for a licence with Uttlesford because it is hard to get a driver’s licence in Cambridge and it is too busy there. The applicant then explained by way of mitigation that he has been suffering financial hardship while on benefits and problems with his ex-partner restricting access to see his son.

We understand that the case has been reviewed by the Environmental Health Manager – Protection and he has decided that it is in the public interest to seek to prosecute the applicant for the alleged offence of making a false statement to obtain a private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence. This means that the applicant does not meet Standard 10 of Appendix A of the Council’s Licensing Standards for drivers, namely, “No pending prosecutions for any criminal or motoring offence”.

This is in addition to Standard 5 of the same Appendix, which provides

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

We have read the papers before us and have heard from the applicant. Unfortunately we cannot find him to be a safe and suitable person to hold a licence.  He has a number of convictions for dishonesty and one under S31(1) ( c) Crime and Disorder Act 1998: his English language skills are not good: and there is a caveat to his Group 2 medical certificate essentially restricting him to driving an automatic vehicle.

Though he was very distressed when he appeared before us, all of these are extremely serious matters. The applicant has twice re-offended during the currency of a suspended sentence and the “hate crime” conviction causes us very great disquiet. All these matters, and particularly this one, are directly relevant to whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a drivers’ licence and we are very much afraid that he is not. Our function is the protection of the public and quite apart from his criminal record we have concerns that the applicant’s inadequate grasp of the English language and potential medical issues might put people at risk.

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.