Agenda item

The Driver was attending, together with two additional parties supporting him and outlining his case to the panel.

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer introduced this report and drew attention to the following:

·         The driver has held a PHD licence since 08 February 2017. His most recent licence expired on 07 August 2019.

·         He has been the Director of  the taxi firm in question since its incorporation on 14 April 2014, and first licensed as a private hire operator with Bristol on 25 August 2015

·         He attended Public Safety and Protection Committee on 28 January 2020 where members decided to refuse his latest application to renew his private hire driver’s licence.

·         The private hire operator’s licence was not considered at that time. An initial

·         appeal date hearing was listed for 1st April 2020, but now adjourned to a later date due to the current COVID-19 outbreak

·         During that meeting it transpired that the driver was currently the sole Director of the tax firm in question

·         The driver was due a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check

on 7^th February 2019. Whilst the application was submitted on 15 January 2019, the certificate was not returned until 8 November 2019. During this time a number of short term licences were issued, the last of which expired on 07 August 2019.

·         The certificate revealed that on 23^rd April 2017 the driver was arrested on suspicion of being involved in the dwelling burglaries of a 68 year old male and his 22 year old grandson at their home address on 22nd April

2017.

·         The circumstances of the case outlined were that the driver was alleged to have heard his three taxi passengers discussing their intent to burgle the address where he had been hired to take them and subsequently joined them in carrying out the

offences.

·         The driver’s passengers threatened the 68 year old male with ahammer and a knife and used the weapons to assault the 22 year old male causing

·         small cuts and minor bruising that did not require medical attention.

·         £64000 was demanded from both alleged victims, and jewellery, a wallet and mobile phones were stolen.

·         A male matching the description of the driver was alleged to have removed jewellery from the 68 year old male’s person.

·         In the police interview the driver denied entering the property,

stealing anything, or threatening anyone, but admitted that he was the male seen on CCTV entering the driveway of the address.

·         On 27th June 2018 the driver was charged with committing two aggravated

burglary dwelling. These offences were later quashed at court and the driver

was charged with the alternative offences of two robberies

·         During the trial at Bristol Crown Court the driver disputed that

he was the male shown in a still CCTV image or that a partial footwear mark found at the address was made by him

·         Following the trial on 16th July 2019 a jury found the driver not guilty of all offences

·         The driver’s DBS certificate showed a number of historic convictions which have previously been considered but which officers feel are relevant to the

applicants suitability to be considered fit and proper to hold a Private Hire Driver Licence as follows:

29^th July 2005 – Robbery: Community Punishment Awarded by a Juvenile Court

29^th June 2006 – Theft from Motor Vehicle: Community Punishment Awarded by a Juvenile Court

2^nd October 2006 – Breach of Community Order

12^th January 2007 – Using Vehicle Whilst Uninsured

20^th October 2006 – Aggravated Vehicle Driving Dangerously

5^th July 2007 – Breach of Curfew Order

24^th April 2008 – Breach of Community Punishment Order

26^th February 2014 – Possession of a Class B Drug

·         The overriding issue in awarding the licence was the safety of the public and that the driver was a fit and proper person to hold it

·         The Panel would need to consider these previous offences in making their decision

The driver and his fellow attendees made the following points and also in response to questioning by the Panel:

·         He has not been involved in the robbery at all

·         There were contradictions in the evidence given by the other people involved in the incident

·         Taxi Drivers had a very difficult job. They frequently faced dealing inadvertently with drug dealers and were subject to assault

·         He had been unable to afford a higher level of solicitor in court so had represented himself

·         Whilst I had agreed with whatever they said as they had weapons, I only really wanted their taxi fare. However, this evidence didn’t each court so it was just my word against theirs

·         I frequently gave discounts to some of the customers. I wasn’t aware that the people in question paid for their fare using a stolen credit card

·         There are previous convictions from the past when I was young and stupid. The small bag of cannabis that was found in my car had been placed there by one of my customers. As it was unclear who had done this, we were all charged

·         He is a highly motivated and intelligent man who went through 3 years of hell, represented himself in the crown court and was successful. Bristol City Council should support him.

In responding to questions raised by the Panel, the Licensing Policy Adviser stated that he had made a note of the following from the hearing that refused his licence:

“Said wanted chunk of money – you guys would probably have said the same thing in my shoes – all I knew was that someone had stolen money so all I was doing was wanting a bit of the money that was already stolen  I admit to that –[ didn’t know there was going to be a robbery. As was already stolen thought was ok “

The Panel asked both parties to withdraw whilst they made their decision. Upon their return, the decision was read out as follows:

Decision:

Although we note that the applicant was acquitted of the offence of burglary following a full trial, this committee exercising a regulatory function is entitled to go behind the acquittal and consider the evidence available on the lower civil standard of proof.

We have made findings of fact that it was more probable than not that the applicant was involved in the incident whereby a dwelling house was burgled.  Although he may not have participated in the burglary itself, we believe from the Police evidence and significant statements made by the applicant during his interview under caution and at a previous committee hearing, that it was plain he knew that criminal activity was taking place and was content to turn a blind eye to it in order to make financial gain for himself.

We have taken into account the new material produced by the applicant today and note inconsistencies in his versions of events.  Given the police interview took place very soon after the incident, we consider this to be the more accurate version.  Further, statements made by the applicant at a previous committee hearing and at today’s hearing indicate to us that he knew what was going on which comes very close to aiding and abetting the offence.

We do not therefore find the applicant’s explanation today to be a credible one.

We have also looked at the applicant’s previous criminal record and have cause for concern that there is a pattern of offending behaviour over a period of time.

We do not believe his explanation that he disclosed details of his arrest to the licensing office since he had further opportunity to disclose this information to the licensing office upon renewal of his licence and failed to do so.

We cannot therefore be satisfied that ST of which the applicant was a director is a fit and proper person to hold a PH Operators licence.  In consequence there is reasonable cause to revoke the licence under section 62(1)(d) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976