Agenda item

Please find attached a report for the above application.

The Sub-Committee received additional supporting evidence from SARI (Support Against Racist Incidents) concerning this application.

In addition to the applicant, the following people attended the hearing to support him:

Mark Linehan – Solicitor

Ramon Billal – Witness

Adriss Adni – Project Worker – SARI

The Senior Licensing Officer advised that there had been 2 offences reported:

17th July 2015 – Common Assault

20th November 2015 – Property Damage

It was a requirement that HCD drivers should be free of any conviction from violence for 5 to 10 years.

The following points were made on behalf of the applicant:

(1)        There were unusual circumstances in this case

(2)        The policy states that an HCD driver must be a fit and proper person and a safe risk to the public;

(3)        There is a discretion available to the Council to award an HCD licence and make an exception to the policy if the applicant is deemed a fit and proper person;

(4)        The applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges on the day of the trial;

(5)        In the case of Mottenham City Council v Farroukh, where an appeal is lodged a Committee is entitled to consider how the offences took place;

(6)        At the time that he pleaded guilty to the charges, he did not plead guilty to the offence  and the Facebook posts in the paperwork which were an important aspect  of the case were not available;

(7)        At the trial, an independent observer had noted that, whilst AH had been calm and polite, the person who had accused him of assault had made racist comments;

(8)        AN had touched the accuser to attract his attention and should not have resulted in a conviction for a criminal offence;

(9)        At the time of the alleged assault, AN had taken photos and made a non-emergency contact with the Police. When this had happened, no complaint had been made. Only later was a complaint made with 2 witnesses. At the time it had been understood that the witnesses were independent. However, one was a friend of the accuser and the other regularly visited the accuser’s shop;

(10)      At the time of the alleged incident, AN had not been operating as a taxi driver. He had behaved in a clam and peaceful manner whilst his vehicle remained blocked. Since the accuser had repeatedly ignored him, AN had placed a hand on his shoulder to attract his attention – as he would normally do as part of the Egyptian culture. A touch is de minimus and does not amount to an assault. AN was never charged with any verbal insults;

(11)      When the photo of the vehicle was shown to the Police Officer, it showed no damage to it;

(12)      Page 30 of the additional bundle of papers indicated that AN had immediately called the Police following the incident which was not in keeping with someone who had kicked the accuser’s vehicle as alleged;

(13)      Since there was no counter-complaint at the time, AN had not pursued the matter further. He was frightened of the individual and wanted to have nothing more to do with him;

(14)      In addition, his mother was gravely ill in Egypt and, since he was preoccupied with this, he did not wish to pursue this matter further. A translation of his mother’s medical records and a certified copy of the death certificate of his father were available;

(15)      By July/August 2015 he had deleted the photo and, since had already discussed the matter with the Police and there had been no further complaint, he thought the matter was resolved;

(16)      When AN had made the original complaint to the Police, none of the racist material on Facebook was available;

(17)      When AN had been received a caution, he had not realised its significance as the interpreter had translated what the Police had said as “this is not a punishment – however, if there is a further offence it will be revisited”. He did not believe he had been convicted and therefore did not record this on the application form;

(18)      Taken together, AN’s behaviour (early disclosure, attending the Police station etc) did not suggest there had been any deliberate concealment;

(19)      AN had been driving since 2013 and was with Mendip District Council in 2014 and 2015, in addition to his licence with Bristol City Council. AN had numerous references from his work in Cambridge, in NVC Customer Service, with Easyjet and as a diver in Sharm El Sheikh;

(20)      AN had been advised at the stage of the renewal of the licence on 20th October 2016 to disclose the incidents and had therefore done so. However, this was not solicited by any formal body and would otherwise have not been revealed until the formal renewal in 2018;

(21)      Up until 2010, AN had received no criminal convictions in Egypt.

AN and all the other attendees were asked to withdraw while the Sub-Committee made a decision.

Resolved – that the Sub-Committee

(1)        noted the November 2015 decision in the Magistrates Court but could not go behind the decision in the Magistrates Court but were willing to make an exception to Council policy in this case and accepted that there were strong mitigating circumstances;

(2)        noted the details of the offending conduct and had pleaded guilty to assault but also noted the circumstances concerned and that the conviction was at the lowest level possible within the court system;

(3)        noted that AN had been racially abused and  had not re-offended since the incident in question and on the balance of probability thought that there was no deliberate attempt at concealment of the conviction in his mind;

(4)        do consider him to be a fit and proper person and agreed to renew the application for a Hackney Carriage Driver Licence.