Agenda item

To consider whether any action is required as a result of a court conviction for plying for hire since the grant of a private hire driver’s licence.

(containing exempt information under Paragraph 1)

The applicant was in attendance with the following other attendees:

Samira Hussain (Solicitor, Witness for the Applicant)

Wayne Jones (Neighbourhood Enforcement Team) – presenting the case

Briana O’Malley (Observer, Neighbourhood Enforcement Team)

Members noted the following:

·         The applicant had obtained  Private Hire Driver Licence in 2013 which was due to expire in 2019

·         Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the report set out the circumstances leading to the applicant’s conviction and its details

·         Appendix D included a letter from the District Judge

·         The applicant had been convicted of playing for hire and for driving without insurance. This was considered a major traffic offence

The applicant made the following points:

·         He had been booked for a job to pick up a passenger in Cheltenham but had been unable to find them. He had become frustrated and, when some individuals approached his car, he did not take their names to confirm they were the booked fare. However, he was not deliberately plying for hire

·         When the customers got into the vehicle, he had no idea who they were. If he had, he would not have let them into the car as he would not have otherwise travelled all the way from Bristol to pick up a random fare

·         2 Character references were provided

·         All the evidence had been placed before the judge whose conclusion was set out in his letter

·         The date of the incident should be taken into account

·         The applicant was sorry about what happened and requested that he be shown leniency as he needs to support his family.

The Legal Adviser made the following points:

·         There seemed to be a disconnect between the conviction and the comments of the judge. If it was demonstrated that it was a pre-booked fare, this would be acknowledged and the defendant would have been acquitted. However, it should be noted that the letter only set out a summary of the conviction. There was a comment included that the applicant did not make sufficient checks concerning the occupants of his vehicle

·         Normally an applicant would be expected to be 6 months free of conviction from the date of conviction before their application could be approved

Both parties were requested to withdraw whilst members made their decision. Upon their return, they were advised of it.

RESOLVED – that the starting point under the policy is that there is a period of 6 months suspension based on the date of the conviction for an offence of plying for hire and no insurance.  There does seem to be a disconnect between the summary comments from the District Judge and the fact of the conviction because if the court believed the licensee had made an innocent mistake he would have been acquitted.  This Sub-Committee cannot go behind the conviction but they believe his explanation, supported by the District Judge, that he did genuinely have a pre-booked fare in Cheltenham – otherwise why would he have driven outside of the District just to commit the offence. The Sub-Committee considered there was a degree of frustration in that he was unable to pick up the pre-booked fare and then simply transported the officers who approached his vehicle without making any enquiries as to their identity.  They also consider there is strong mitigation involved and given the Licensee’s previous good record and the remorse he showed to the committee, he has satisfied the Sub-Committee that he should be treated as an exception to the policy.  There is no action on the licence on this occasion but a warning as to future conduct.