Agenda item

SK was in attendance, together with Alison Wright (Neighbourhood Enforcement Team) and Carl Knights (Senior Licensing Officer).

Alison Wright showed the Sub-Committee a recording from a CCTV camera without audio of an incident involving SK and another driver which also involved a substantial number of bystanders.

At the end of the recording, Alison Wright made the following comments as part of the presentation of her report:

·       The alleged assault by and on SK during this incident would not be pursued since both parties declined to support prosecution

·       Criminal damage to coffee shop furniture arising from this incident was likely to be dealt with by resolution between the parties

·       Alleged racial comments made by SK during this incident were unlikely to result in prosecution since there were no independent witnesses

·       The incident shown in the CCTV camera was due to be heard by the Crown Prosecution Service with a charge of affray against SK

·       There had been a significant number of previous complaints made against SK listed in the report

The Sub-Committee noted that they were considering whether or not to take action against SK in the event of the incident described and previous incidents, as well as considering an application for renewal of a Hackney Carriage Licence which had expired on 24^th October 2022 and would require a Euro 6 Diesel Engine under new Bristol City Council policy.

SK made the following comments:

·       This was a very embarrassing episode and he was ashamed of his behaviour

·       He was frustrated at the ongoing behaviour on ranks of private cars parking which he had complained about multiple times and for which he had received abuse and threats. Whilst Parking Services stated that they would get a traffic warden to deal with these situations, they rarely did

·       On this occasion, he phoned Parking Services and provided them with the registration number of the vehicle. Following this, the incident had unfolded as you saw. He verbally abused and threatened me. Following an exchange of words, I had reacted as seen on the CCTV tape

In response to members’ questions, SK made the following points:

·       He acknowledged that he could be argumentative and that large members of the public were nearby during this incident and could have been affected. He frequently complained about private drivers but was frustrated that his complaints were rarely addressed

·       He was not aware that he needed to disclose the previous incident if the matter did not go to court

·       He explained in detail his recollection of the September 20i9 incident involving the drunk female passenger. He stated that the comment from one of the other drivers was incorrect since this driver had picked up a passenger from behind him and also was not correct in his description of SK’s behaviour. This driver had also misinterpreted SK behaviour when SK had approached him two days later to ask if he was ok

·       SK stated that he was badly injured in the incident shown and that his ear was nearly bitten off

SK indicated that he was clearly attacked and had reacted to defend himself but he acknowledged that he overreacted when his ear was bitten during the incident.

Councillors made the following comments during the discussion:

·       It was a requirement of Hackney Carriage Drivers to retain composure in situations

·       Whilst SK had portrayed this as a unfortunate extreme incident, there had been previous incidents of concern involving him. In 2003 he had come to Sub-Committee as a result of an incident which had resulted in his licence being revoked.  

·       There was ample time for SK to break off the conflict shown in the incident but he chose not to do so

SK and the various parties left the meeting to allow the Sub-Committee to take a decision. The Legal Adviser and Democratic Services Officer remained in attendance.

Upon their return, Councillor Richard Eddy announced the following decision of the Sub-Committee:

RESOLVED (unanimously):

1.    That the HCD Licence of SK be revoked on the ground contained in section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 namely “any other reasonable cause” and that in accordance with section 61(2B) it is in the interests of public safety that the revocation have immediate effect

2.    That the HCV licence be refused on the ground contained in section 60(1)(c) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 namely “any other reasonable cause”

Reasons:

We noted that the Police had disclosed information in relation to SK which was passed to the Neighbourhood Enforcement Team (NET) to carry out further investigations. The disclosure was to inform the Council that on 27 August 2022 SK was arrested on suspicion of causing an affray, following an incident with a member of the public who had parked on a taxi rank at The Horsefair. Both parties had sustained injuries during the incident. When interviewed by the police, SK raised self-defence as a reason for throwing the first punch.

The Committee viewed CCTV footage of the incident which took place in broad daylight in a busy public area.  From this it was seen that although SK might have been provoked, he threw the first punch after which a fight ensued between the two parties which members of the public had to break up.  The behaviour from SK, as a licensed driver with the Council, was inexcusable and had the potential to adversely affect members of the public who witnessed it.  It was also clear from the footage that despite members of the public trying to break up the fight and restrain SK, he made numerous attempts to re-engage the conflict with the other party demonstrating that he is an individual who is unable to control his temper.

It is not the role of this committee to try to second guess the outcome of the criminal investigation but we are entitled to reach findings of fact on a balance of probabilities as to whether SK is still a fit and proper person to hold a private hire drivers licence.

In line with Council policy, offences involving violence (including findings reached by the Committee on a balance of probabilities) usually require a period of 10 years free of conviction/offending conduct before an application will be entertained.  We have not heard anything from SK today to satisfy us that he should be treated as an exception to Council policy in this case.

We also noted with some concern the pattern of complaints against SK which we are entitled to take into account in accordance with the National Standards which state:

“Complaints about drivers and operators provide a source of intelligence when considering the renewal of a licence or to identify problems during the period of the licence. Patterns of behaviour such as complaints against drivers, even when they do not result in further action in response to an individual compliant, may be indicative of characteristics that raise doubts over the suitability to hold a licence. All licensing authorities should have a robust system for recording complaints, including analysing trends across all licensees as well as complaints against individual licensees. Such a system will help authorities to build a fuller picture of the potential risks an individual may pose and may tip the ‘balance of probabilities’ assessment that licensing authorities must take.”

SK’s conduct had therefore fallen far below the standards the Council is entitled to expect from those whom it licenses.  Consequently, the Committee could no longer be satisfied that SK was a fit and proper person to hold a HCD licence.

As for the vehicle application the vehicle is more than 10 years old and no longer compliant with Council policy.  The Committee had heard nothing to persuade them to depart from Council policy without undermining it or the reasons that underlie it. In addition to this, it was not appropriate to allow SK to hold a HCV licence in view of the members reaching a finding he was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a HCD licence.