Agenda item

The Applicant was in attendance for the item.

The Licensing Officer outlined the background to the application as follows:

·         The Applicant had previously applied in 2016 and had been refused a licence by the Public Safety and Protection Committee at that time.

·         The Applicant had applied again in August 2018 and had failed to disclose that he had a police caution for soliciting and that he had previously had an application refused by Bristol City Council.

·         The officer recommendation was to refuse the application in line with policy, but if the Committee were minded to approve, the applicant would need to complete the knowledge test.

The Applicant made the following case in support of his application:

·         He had not declared his police caution as he understood that he did not have to do so after five years;

·         He had told someone in the Licensing Office that he had an application refused and thought that this information was already in the system;

·         He was currently working as a security officer but he wanted to apply for a licence as he believed that being a PHD was a more stable job

In response to questioning the applicant:

·         clarified that he had not been told by anyone in the Licensing Office that he did not need to declare an offence after 5 years;

·         stated that he did not know that soliciting was illegal and had not done it again since his police caution;

·         he was not arrested, but was stopped by the police after the incident and later received a caution;

·         he was not driving a taxi at the time of the incident;

·         he had filled in the form himself.

In response to questioning of the Licensing Officer, it was confirmed that the Applicant had never been licensed as a PHD by Bristol City Council.

At this point in the meeting, the Applicant and his representatives and the Licensing Officers withdrew while the Committee considered the application.   Following the Committee’s deliberations, the Licensing Officer and Applicant returned to hear the decision.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED in that in accordance with section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 the Committee was not satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold such a licence for the following reasons:

·         As a result of the offence of a serious sexual nature the Committee could not be satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a PHD’s licence.  A period of 5 – 15 years free of offending conduct was usually required before an applicant can be regarded as suitable. 

·         The offending conduct falls within the policy and the Applicant had not satisfied the committee that he should be treated as an exception to the policy. 

·         The Committee was also concerned that the applicant had made an incorrect declaration on the application form and although he contended he had misunderstood the form, the Committee had doubts about this. 

·         The Applicant produced no supporting information, such as references, to satisfy the Committee that he was a suitable person to be licensed by this Council.