Minutes:
Members were asked to consider and determine an application for a combined hackney carriage and private hire driver licence, from applicant - 141351 who was previously revoked by this authority in 2017 and had relevant convictions which meant he currently did not meet Transport Policy.
Applicant - 141351 attended the meeting and was given the opportunity to make representation.
Committee papers and reports had been provided to all relevant parties prior to the meeting.
The report detailed the following:
- a copy of Applicant – 141351’s application which contained a DVLA check code, showing no live DVLA endorsements
- a copy of a summary transcript of an interview with Applicant – 141351 and Licensing Officers which was held on 16th March 2023
- a copy of a letter to Applicant – 141351 granting him his licence in 2016 which included a warning
- a copy of the revocation letter to Applicant – 141351 dated 2017.
The Chair introduced everyone present and explained the procedure to be followed during the hearing.
The Committee noted that they were to consider an application from Applicant – 141351 who’s DBS disclosure confirmed two convictions for battery on 1st May 2016; and who was sentenced to 8 weeks imprisonment and fined a victim surcharge of £115 and costs of £620 for these offences.
The Committee were told that the victims in this matter were Applicant – 141351’s wife and daughter.
The Committee also heard that Applicant – 141351 had previously held a private hire vehicle drivers’ licence with this Authority, which was revoked in 2017 following his battery convictions.
Applicant – 141351 was interviewed by officers on Tuesday 16th March 2023, and was asked about the incident that led to his prison sentence. Applicant – 141351 had told officers that bamboo sticks were found in his house by police, however denied hitting his wife or daughter with these.
The Committee noted that Applicant – 141351 had advised officers that in his view the incident was an internal family matter and that he would not be aggressive with customers or members of the public.
The Committee further heard that Applicant – 141351’s comments during his interview concerned officers; Applicant – 141351 struggled to understand what a vulnerable person was and when questioned about transporting a lone female, he suggested that he would take her to the police station rather than transport her home safely.
The Committee noted that when questioned further on this point, Applicant – 141351 made comments that he did not trust women and said “because, you know, in this country, women have power”.
The Committee also heard that Applicant – 141351 received a police caution on 2 August 2012 for common assault; Applicant – 141351 stated in interview at the time that this was due to a disagreement with a friend outside his child’s school.
Applicant – 141351 explained to the Committee that he was a joiner by profession, however, would like to be a taxi driver as he enjoyed this previously and it was less strenuous than joinery as he aged.
The Committee heard from Applicant – 141351 that in his view he made a mistake and was punished; he now wished to support his family by working as a taxi driver.
In response to the Committee’s questioning in relation to the incident in 2016, that led to Applicant – 141351’s conviction for battery, Applicant – 141351 explained that he was trying to educate his teenage daughter after she shared a photograph of herself on social media. Applicant – 141351 told the Committee that his wife took their daughter’s side in this disagreement, and he had shouted at them both, and that they had subsequently telephoned the police.
Applicant – 141351 told the Committee that the police thought that he had hit his wife and daughter as they found bamboo sticks in the house that he used for gardening. Applicant – 141351 said that during the argument he grabbed his wife and daughter hard, however he felt that they had sensitive skin which marked easily. The Committee noted that Applicant – 141351 repeatedly denied hitting his wife and daughter, despite his convictions for battery against them.
The Committee heard from Applicant – 141351 that he lived happily and peacefully with his wife and daughter, and they now also had a two-year-old daughter; three daughters in total. Applicant – 141351 told the Committee that he knew he was wrong, made a mistake and was punished for it.
In response to the Committee’s questioning in relation to the incident in 2012, for which he accepted a police caution for common assault, Applicant – 141351 said that this incident was him joking with a friend, where they were pushing and shoving each other. Applicant – 141351 told the Committee that his friend was a short man, and that Applicant – 141351 had pushed him too hard and he fell into a bush. Applicant – 141351 said that the school called the police as they believed they were fighting. During the hearing, the Committee heard Applicant – 141351 denied any aggression towards his friend.
Applicant – 141351’s further responded to the Committee’s questioning about the comments he made in interview about women, Applicant – 141351 said that he could not explain himself properly and that this was a misunderstanding. Applicant – 141351 explained to the Committee that he had previously formed the view that women had power because during the incident with his wife and daughter, the police listened to his daughter and not him. Applicant – 141351 assured the Committee that he now understood that men and women had equal rights. Applicant – 141351 reiterated to the Committee that he had made mistakes, but now understands his wrongdoing.
The Committee was given an opportunity to ask questions of Applicant – 141351, with Applicant – 141351 speaking last.
Members had regard to the Committee papers, which had been circulated prior to the hearing and presented to them, in addition to the oral submissions made by the applicant in response to the Committee’s questions.
Having carefully considered the written application and documentation before them and in reaching their decision, the Members had regard to the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The Committee also had regard to the Council’s Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing Policy 2021 – 2026 (“the Policy”).
Under section 51 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Committee shall not grant a drivers licence unless they are satisfied that the driver is a fit and proper person. When determining this matter, the Committee considered this application on its merits.
The Committee considered Appendix F of the Policy, specifically the provision that a licence would normally be refused if an applicant had more than one conviction in the last ten years for an offence of a violent nature.
The Committee noted that Applicant – 141351 had two convictions within the last ten years for battery, plus a police caution for common assault from 2012, eleven years ago.
The Committee further noted the provision within the Policy that stated that the Council deemed incidents of domestic violence to be extremely serious because if an individual is prepared to assault an individual in a domestic or home environment, then they would have concerns over the person's ability to maintain their temper when working in an environment dealing with members of the public. The Committee noted that Applicant – 141351’s offending was against his wife, daughter, and someone whom he considers a friend, and therefore they could not be satisfied that he would behave appropriately towards strangers; members of the public.
The Committee noted that no character references were provided by anyone in support of Applicant – 141351’s application.
Committee Members took into consideration that despite admitting that he had made mistakes and been punished, Applicant – 141351 appeared to minimise his past offending behaviour and did not seem to offer any genuine remorse for his actions.
The Committee Members were not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they cared for to enter a vehicle with the applicant alone due to their doubts surrounding his previous two battery convictions against his family and a police caution for common assault, along with his concerning comments made during interview about how he would deal with a lone female.
The Committee Members gave weight to their view that Applicant – 141351 took no responsibility for his actions against his wife and daughter in 2016, and that he appeared to blame them for the incident which led to his convictions. This was compounded by the fact that Applicant – 141351 minimised the incident for which he received a police caution for common assault, by asserting that this was simply “joking around”.
The Committee noted that Applicant – 141351 told them that during the argument in 2016, he grabbed his wife and daughter hard, yet denied hitting them with bamboo sticks. The Committee members felt that any form of aggression towards his family members was unacceptable, and this added weight to their view that the applicant was not a fit and proper person.
The Committee noted information contained within the committee papers, which detailed Applicant – 141351’s interview with licensing officers in 2016, where Applicant – 141351 admitted an argument with a friend during which he pushed his friend to the floor. The Committee noted that this differed from Applicant – 141351’s assertion to the Committee during the hearing that this incident was in jest and was not aggressive.
Ultimately, the Committee did not believe that Applicant – 141351 was a fit and proper person to hold a combined hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers licence owing to his previous aggressive behaviour towards friends and family, along with concerning comments made during his interview about how he would deal with a lone female and his views on women. The Committee were unanimously satisfied that the application should therefore be refused.
RESOLVED that Applicant – 141351's, application for a Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence be refused for the reasons as detailed above.