Agenda item

Members were asked to consider and determine an application for a combined hackney carriage and private hire driver licence, from Applicant - 001391 who had previously held a combined licence with this authority, and which was revoked in November 2022.

 

Applicant - 001391 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 - 001391’s application, including a DVLA check code and current full licence which had no endorsements

 

- A copy of a summary transcript with Applicant – 001391 and Licensing Officers which took place during September 2024.

 

- A copy of a committee minute and decision notice where Applicant – 001391 had had his licence revoked.

 

The Chair introduced everyone present and explained the procedure to be followed during the hearing.

 

The Committee noted that the application was for the grant of an application for a combined hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers’ licence as detailed in the Committee report.

 

The Committee heard that as Applicant – 001391 had previously had his combined hackney carriage and private hire drivers’ licence revoked by the Committee, it was standard practice for the Committee to determine a new application from him.

 

The Committee heard that, as part of the application process, Applicant – 001391 was interviewed during September 2024. The Committee were told that Applicant – 001391 stated in interview that he believed that he was a fit and proper person because he was not convicted of any offence by Cleveland Police, despite two previous arrests.

 

The Committee heard that records confirmed that Applicant – 001391 was licensed by the Council prior to 2004, until his licence was revoked in 2022.

 

The Committee were told that Applicant – 001391’s licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles was suspended in 2020, following his arrest by Cleveland Police for allegedly  engaging in controlling/coercive behaviour and allegedly raping his then wife.

 

The Committee understood that a further arrest followed in August 2021; Applicant –   001391’s licence remained suspended at that time following the first arrest. The second arrest for rape was in connection with an allegation from a female that she was transported to an address in Bowesfield Lane, Stockton-on-Tees, and subjected to imprisonment, gang rape and injected with heroin.

 

The Committee were told that in November 2022, Cleveland Police took no further action against Applicant – 001391 in any of the matters for which he was arrested.

 

The Committee heard that Applicant – 001391 subsequently appeared before the Licensing Committee on 8th November 2022; Members revoked his combined hackney carriage and private hire drivers’ licence, as they did not deem him to be a fit and proper person.

 

The Committee heard that Applicant – 001391 exercised his right of appeal against the revocation, and his appeal was heard at Teesside Magistrates’ Court on 11th April 2023. When reading aloud the Court’s decision, the Court stated that Applicant – 001391’s appeal was full of inconsistencies, including:

 

• Applicant – 001391, claiming during the Licensing Committee hearing that the police had taken CCTV from his building, but he had not been informed of the outcome of this;

 

• Applicant – 001391 stated during his recorded police interview that the CCTV was not working; and had stopped working a year before the incident;

 

• Applicant – 001391 did not disclose to Police on arrest that he was a taxi driver yet told the Court that he had told the Police that he was a taxi driver.

 

The Committee heard that the Court refused Applicant – 001391’s appeal as the Court did not believe that he was a fit and proper person. Costs in the sum of £300 were awarded in favour of the Council, which Applicant – 001391 had paid.

 

The Committee were told that apart from the two arrests, Applicant – 001391’s driver history included a note on file that during December 2012, PC Snaith had caused the vehicle being driven by Applicant – 001391 to stop, as he had witnessed Applicant – 001391 driving at 45mph in 30mph zone. The committee papers contained PC Snaith’s email being sent to the Council describing the interaction with Applicant – 001391.

 

The Committee noted that Applicant – 001391 had provided them with additional documentation, which was circulated to everyone present at the hearing. These documents included the following :-

 

• A copy of an email dated 21st October 2024 at 23:59, from Applicant – 001391 to a Licensing Officer. The email attached the additional documentation to be circulated prior to the Committee and sets out what Applicant – 001391 went on to tell the Committee during the hearing.

 

• A copy of an email dated 29th June 2021 at 02:24, from Paul Robinson of Cleveland Police to Applicant – 001391. The email detailed an allegation made by Applicant – 001391 of theft and criminal damage against his ex-wife, and confirmed that no further action was to be taken as the evidential threshold had not been met;

 

• A copy of an email dated 7th September 2023 at 17:16, from the office of Matt Vickers MP, setting out the Home Office’s response to correspondence sent to the Home Office;

 

•A copy of an email dated 20th July 2023 at 11:57, from the office of Rishi Sunak MP, advising Applicant – 001391 to contact Matt Vickers MP rather than Mr Sunak;

 

•A copy of a HMCTS divorce application issued on 3rd June 2021;

 

•A copy of what appeared to be the first page of an undated Family Cout Order;

 

•A copy of page 1 of 3 of a Land Registry document addressed to Applicant – 001391 dated 11th August 2021 entitled “Notice of an application for a home rights notice” in relation to the Family Law Act 1996;

 

• A copy of a document entitled “Third and Final Islamic Divorce” dated 30th July 2020;

 

• A copy of a letter dated 9th June 2021, from Cleveland Police Domestic Abuse Unit, confirming that no further action was being taken against Applicant – 001391 due to insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction; and

 

• A redacted document entitled “Appendix 9 Cleveland Police Factual Report provided by OIC PC Pate on 07.10.2022” that confirmed that in relation to the allegation of kidnap and rape for which Applicant – 001391 was arrested, the victim began to disengage from Police and would not take the matter further. The document confirmed that no further action was taken against Applicant – 001391 and the other suspect(s) as there was “no evidence to suggest that they were responsible for the allegations made”.

 

A further document was presented to the Committee by Applicant – 001391 during the hearing; a letter dated 10th January 2023, from Mr M Maroof of Tees Valley Cabs Limited in support of Applicant – 001391’s appeal, heard in April 2023.

 

Applicant – 001391 addressed the Committee at length in relation to his two arrests and his divorce from his ex-wife.

 

Regarding references to CCTV in connection with the gang rape allegation (Applicant – 001391’s second arrest), Applicant – 001391 told the Committee that he owned fifty percent of the building, with his brother owning the other half. Applicant – 001391 told the Committee that his brother had a CCTV company, and that his brother dealt with the request for CCTV at the time, not him. Applicant – 001391 told the Committee that during his police interview, he told the police that the CCTV had not worked “for a while”, not for over a year.

 

Applicant – 001391 told the Committee that he now accepted that he did not tell the police that he was a taxi driver and apologised for missing this out previously.

 

Regarding the driver history record of Applicant – 001391 being stopped by police for exceeding the speed limit on 16th December 2012, Applicant – 001391 told the Committee that he was unaware of this and could not recall being spoken to by the Police. Applicant – 001391 advised the Committee that he had submitted a subject access request for this information from Cleveland Police, however this would take time.

 

In response to the Committee’s questioning about his attitude to exceeding the speed limit, Applicant – 001391 stated that he should have been interviewed by the Council at the time if he had been travelling that fast. Applicant – 001391 was reminded that the question related to his attitude towards exceeding the speed limit, rather than the actions of the Council at the time. Applicant – 001391 eventually confirmed to the Committee that he did not exceed the speed limit and had made a subject access request to police for information regarding this incident, as he could not recall it.

 

Regarding Applicant – 001391’s first arrest for engaging in controlling/coercive behaviour and raping his then wife, Applicant – 001391 reiterated what he had advised the Committee and the Court previously; this was, in his view, a malicious allegation made by his then wife to ensure that she could remain in the UK.

 

In relation to his second arrest in connection with the gang rape allegation, Applicant – 001391 told the Committee that he now believed that his ex-wife paid the person to make a false allegation and have him arrested, although he acknowledged in response to the Committee’s questioning that he had no evidence to support his new theory. The Committee heard from Applicant – 001391 that he intended to make a claim for unlawful arrest in relation to this matter.

 

The Committee heard from Applicant – 001391 that he had also applied to Newcastle City Council for a licence, which the Committee confirmed was not relevant to this Committee.

 

The Committee heard that in response to being asked if he believed that he was a fit and proper person to hold a combined hackney carriage and private hire drivers licence, Applicant – 001391 confirmed that he previously worked for Tees Valley Cabs Limited for 17 years, and always worked his birthday and during Eid.

 

Applicant – 001391 told the Committee that although he knew that he had been arrested twice, he had never been arrested before or after those two occasions. Applicant – 001391 also told the Committee that the allegations made by his wife were made against him and his family members, the day after their divorce, in his view so that she could stay in the country. Regarding the second allegation, Applicant – 001391 told the Committee that he did not know who the female complainant was, but that these allegations were also made against him and his family, and that he was the only family not to have been re-licenced as a taxi driver.

 

The Committee was given an opportunity to ask questions of Applicant – 001391, with Applicant – 001391 speaking last.

 

Members had regard to the Committee papers, which had been circulated prior to the hearing and presented to them.

 

Having carefully considered the written 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”).

 

The Committee noted that under section 51 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Committee shall not grant a driver’s licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person. When determining this matter, the Committee considered this application on its merits.

 

The Committee found Applicant – 001391 to be disingenuous and evasive, particularly when asked about the incident on 16th December 2012, which was detailed in the email from PC Snaith contained within the Committee papers. The Committee appreciated that the interaction with police was over eleven years ago, and that Applicant – 001391 stated that he could not recall it. The Committee, however, found it difficult to understand why Applicant – 001391 had made a subject access request in relation to this matter, as PC Snaith’s account of the interaction was clearly set out within the Committee papers. The Committee were more concerned by Applicant – 001391’s evasive responses to their questioning about his attitude to exceeding the speed limit, rather than the subject matter of an incident over eleven years ago.

 

The Committee appreciated Applicant – 001391 advising them that he now accepts that he omitted to advise the police that he was a taxi driver on both occasions when he was arrested. Whilst the Committee heard Applicant – 001391 apologise for omitting to tell them this previously, the Committee found it difficult to add any weight to what Applicant – 001391 told them, as he now admitted being untruthful about this in the past.

 

The Committee felt that Applicant – 001391’s account of the matters for which he was arrested appeared on balance to be inconsistent, particularly due to Applicant – 001391’s assertion that the two arrests were somehow linked, and his belief that his ex-wife had paid the complainant in the gang rape and kidnap matter to fabricate the allegations against Applicant – 001391 and his family members. The Committee noted that Applicant – 001391 did not raise this concern at the time with Police, nor did he share this with the original Licensing Committee on 8th November 2022, nor with Magistrates during his appeal hearing on 11th April 2023.

 

This Committee felt, on the balance of probabilities, that they had not been provided with any credible evidence to demonstrate that Applicant – 001391 was a fit and proper person. The Committee were not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care for to enter a vehicle alone with Applicant – 001391, due to their concerns at the inconsistencies in Applicant – 001391’s account of the matters before them, and the evasive manner in which he presented himself before them at the hearing.

 

The Committee were also mindful of the two separate arrests for serious allegations of rape in July 2020 and August 2021, both of which Applicant – 001391 failed to notify the licensing department of, in contravention of his licence conditions. The Committee noted that holding a combined hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers licence was a privilege and not a right. Ultimately, the safety of the traveling public was the Committee’s paramount concern, and the Committee felt, on balance, that their doubts about Applicant – 001391’s fitness and propriety meant that they could not grant his application; and it was therefore refused.

 

RESOLVED that Applicant – 001391’s application for a Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s licence be refused for the reasons as detailed above.