A report from the Executive Director (Operations) is attached.
Minutes:
The Executive Director (Operations) submitted a report relating to Applicant 10/2022 who was in attendance at the meeting along with a family member. The Chair made introductions and along with the Legal Advisor outlined the procedure to be followed and clarified that all those present had read the report. The report, which was accepted by the Applicant and presented by the Licensing Unit Manager, set out the reasons for the Applicant being before the Committee.
This applicant had previously held a Hackney Carriage Driver licence and a Hackney Carriage vehicle licence granted by this Authority. On the 5th September 2012, he appeared before the Licensing and Safety Panel in relation to an allegation of rape on a female passenger which resulted in his Hackney Carriage Driver licence being revoked. He appealed the Panel decision to Bury Magistrates and his appeal was dismissed.
The applicant had subsequently appeared before members of the Licensing and Safety Panel on the 6th October 2014 and 11th April 2016 seeking consideration as to his suitability to become a Hackney Carriage Driver. On both occasions his application was refused.
On the 26th April 2018 and the 23rd July 2020, he appeared before the Licensing and Safety Panel for consideration to become a Private Hire Driver. These applications were also refused.
On the 16th March 2022; the applicant submitted a new application to become a Private Hire Driver. However, supporting documents to accompany his application were outstanding therefore he submitted a further new application on 31st October 2022. As per the application process the applicant submitted himself to a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Disclosure Check. The resultant certificate was issued on the 27th September 2022 and contained no information.
Previous DBS certificates had contained information that had been disclosed in previous panel reports. This information had been previously disclosed at the Chief Police Officers discretion and was contained within the private agenda pack. Greater Manchester Police believed that this information was relevant and ought to be disclosed despite the fact that this applicant was not charged with any offences, because he is applying for the role of taxi driver and the information relates to an allegation from 2012.
This disclosure relates to the incident which resulted in his previously held licence being revoked.
Further information contained in the report detailed the Council’s Policy and Guidelines on sexual and indecency offences along with intelligence and other information which had not resulted in a criminal conviction.
The Applicant explained that he had learnt his lesson for the previous mistake which took place and apologised to the committee asking for a second chance. He was a changed person and would not let people down.
The family member representative provided the committee with some family background information and stated what occurred in 2012 was wrong. She stated that the applicant was truthful and honest whilst he also undertook community work which involved females and there had been no complaints made.
The Council’s legal representative clarified with the applicant that he asserted that the incident which occurred in 2012 was consensual and he regretted this.
Delegated decision:
The Committee carefully considered the report, oral representations by the applicant and his family member representative along with a written statement and references circulated to the committee at the meeting.
Taking into account the Council’s Conviction Policy and Guidelines and in accordance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, and the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the Committee resolved to refuse the application. </AI9>
The reasons for the Committee’s decision were as follows:
· The applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
· Whilst there was no conviction, the applicant accepted the 2012 incident in a licensed vehicle, which was not appropriate conduct.
· Public safety was paramount and the committee had no confidence in the applicant carrying lone female passengers who could be vulnerable at any time of day or night.
Supporting documents: