Minutes:
Members were asked to consider and determine the fitness applicant - 073050 for a private hire driver licence who had previously been revoked by this authority. The matter has been deferred from a previous meeting when applicant - 073050 was unable to attend due to a family bereavement.
Applicant – 073050, his son and his representative Simon Walker attended the meeting and were 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, a Common Law Police Disclosure (CLPD) from Cleveland Police relating to applicant - 073050.
- A copy of an email and supporting documents relating to an alleged incident against applicant – 073050.
- A copy of a decision and revocation letter to applicant – 073050.
- A copy of applicant – 073050’s application including a DVLA check code
- A copy of a redacted Storm report stating no further action (NFA), would be taken against applicant – 073050 in relation to the alleged incident.
- A copy of CCTV stills which were taken during the alleged incident involving applicant – 073050.
- A copy of a police disclosure and warning letter to applicant – 073050.
- A copy of a transcript interview with Licensing Officers and applicant – 073050.
The Chair introduced everyone present and explained the procedure to be followed during the hearing.
The Committee Members were presented with the officers’ report and had the opportunity to ask questions of both the officers, applicant – 073050 and his representative Simon Walker.
The Committee heard that applicant - 073050 had previously been licenced with the authority from August 2008, until his licence was revoked in August 2024. The Committee heard that during August 2024, disclosure was received from Cleveland Police, confirming that applicant - 073050 was arrested for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and affray. Members were also informed that Cleveland Police had made a decision to take no further action (NFA) against applicant – 073050, and the incident was closed under Outcome 15 where the victim supports prosecution, but police decide not to proceed due to evidential limitations.
The Committee reviewed all the information provided and considered the submissions made by both applicant – 073050, his representative and the licensing officer, as well as CCTV footage which was shown during the hearing.
The main topics discussed were as follows:
- Applicant – 073050’s representative explained in detail the alleged incident against applicant – 073050, giving his clients version of events to the Committee informing Members that applicant -073050 was trying to peacefully break up an incident, however, was attacked and then acted in self-defence. Applicant – 073050’s representative also highlighted that Cleveland Police had taken NFA and that the incident was without precedent, nothing previous and nothing subsequently.
- Applicant – 073050’s representative raised questions as to whether any evidence had been submitted contrary to applicant – 073050 submissions, and if not then applicant – 073050 should have his licence reinstated.
- Applicant- 073050’s representative gave a brief overview of applicant – 073050’s good character. He held a clean driving licence, had transported tens of thousands of passengers during his 17 years’ experience as a taxi driver within Stockton Borough. He was honest, sober, courteous, mentally and physically fit, he had worked hard, paid his taxes and had never been charged with any criminal offence, all of which should confirm to the Committee that he was a fit and proper person to hold a private hire drivers licence, and which was the test that Members should base their decision on.
- Members discussed the content of the CCTV footage that was shown during the hearing and sought clarity over some parts of the footage, particularly a weapon which the police had stated was a bicycle chain which applicant – 073050 was seen carrying and swinging at another individual who was also involved in the incident. This was refuted by applicant – 073050’s representative who explained it was not a bicycle chain but a red and white plastic interlinked chain, and there was no clear evidence to say that applicant – 073050 had hit anyone with the chain. Applicant- 073050’s representative did state however that it was clear that applicant – 073050 had been hit as seen in the photographic evidence, hence why he was defending himself.
- A brief discussion was had around 2 previous complaints received against applicant – 073050 in June 2020 and October 2022. Members felt that this highlighted applicant – 073050 did not have an exemplary record. Applicant – 073050’s representative informed the Committee that in terms of the complaint reported in June 2020, this was not substantiated and even though applicant – 073050 refuted the complaint he still received a warning letter.
- 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 Licensing Officer and the applicant’s representative as well as the CCTV footage .
- The Committee raised concerns at the claim’s applicant – 073050 had made referring to himself as a peacemaker during the incident, however it was clear from the CCTV footage viewed during the hearing that applicant – 073050 had exited his vehicle and moved towards the ongoing disorder; the Committee found no evidence of peacekeeping by applicant – 073050. The Committee noted that applicant – 073050 involved himself in the incident, moved towards the violence and took an active part arming himself with a chain. The Committee did not feel that it was relevant whether the chain was metal or plastic nor how applicant – 073050 came to be holding the chain.
- Applicant – 073050 had not given any reason for becoming involved in the incident and the Committee found applicant – 073050’s behaviour with the chain to be very concerning. Applicant – 073050 was clearly visible on the CCTV footage, intentionally swinging the chain towards a younger male. The Committee noted that there was no evidence of applicant – 073050 attempting to diffuse the situation in any way, nor removing himself from the situation.
The Committee members were not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle with applicant – 073050, due to their concerns about his behaviour during the incident. It was further noted that applicant – 073050 did not appear to have any insight into his behaviour, considering himself to have acted as a peacemaker, when it was clear to the Committee that this was not the case.
The Committee further noted that applicant – 073050’s account of how he came to be in possession of the chain differed in interview from in his submission in August 2024. It was also believed, on the balance of probabilities, that applicant – 073050 was disingenuous during interview when he claimed to have no recollection of swinging the chain. The Committee found it difficult to believe that applicant – 073050 would not remember doing this, when he could remember being in possession of the chain.
Ultimately, the Committee did not believe that applicant – 073050 was a fit and proper person to hold a private hire vehicle drivers licence due to their concerns outlined above. The Committee were unanimously satisfied that applicant – 073050’s application should therefore be refused.
RESOLVED that applicant – 073050’s application for a private hire drivers’ licence be refused for the reasons as detailed above.