Agenda item

Mohammed Mannah attended with the applicant as a friend. Since the Licensing team had not received the applicant’s request for an interpreter, he acted as an interpreter with the agreement of all parties.

The Senior Licensing Officer made the following points:

(1)        No application had been made to renew a Hackney Carriage Licence. However, an application had been made for a Private Hire Drivers Licence and the applicant had at this time not revealed their conviction – this had only been revealed later under a DBRS;

(2)        Under the Council’s policy, no licence would be issued to someone who had received a serious conviction within the previous 5 years (as in this case which was a common assault).

AAM made the following comments:

(1)        During the incident in question, the Police Officer had requested AAM to move since he believed the rank was full. However, a space became available and, when AAM moved to the side and stopped the car to get out and speak to the officer, he had been arrested;

(2)        This was his first ever offence. He received a 6-month caution on 8th July 2016 and had sent to licensing details of this case. He, therefore, did not believe that he received a conviction and would not have hidden it if he had known the true situation;

(3)        AAM did not believe the representation he had received in court had been satisfactory. In addition, language was a difficulty throughout the process and an interpreter was not arranged in court;

(4)        Whilst the vehicle had passed close to the police officer, it had not hit him. He referred to the CCTV which was shown in court and said that this demonstrated this. However he had been advised that, as the police officer was close to the car, it was AAM’s responsibility to ensure there was sufficient space available;

(5)        The Police officer had leaned into the car to speak to AAM and had told him to move – at this moment, a space became available so he moved towards it;

(6)        He had not blocked Denmark Street as alleged

The Sub-Committee noted that:

(7)        The statement from the Police Officer had indicated that AAM had been rude and arrogant in his behaviour;

(8)        AAM had received 3 points on his licence for exceeding 20mph on 21st January 2014 which would remain on his record until 2018;

(9)        The statement from the Police Officer was not evidence given in court;

(10)      AAM need not have hit the Police Officer to be shared with common assault (just putting someone in fear) – if he had done so, then this would have been a more serious offence.

The Sub-Committee requested that all parties leave the room whilst they made their decision.

Resolved – that notwithstanding the criminal conviction, the licence is renewed on the basis that they accept AAM’s comments concerning what had happened in this instance and due to his previous good character;

(2)        the Sub-Committee nevertheless expressed some concerns about the incident and reminds AAM to put the safety of a Police Officer first in any future incident;

(3)        the Sub-Committee also expresses concern about the failure of AAM to declare the points he had received on his licence;

(4)        the Sub-Committee also reminds AAM to ensure that he makes every effort in future to ensure he has an interpreter in similar situations.

(1)        notwithstanding the criminal conviction, the licence is renewed on the basis that they accept AAM’s comments concerning what had happened in this instance and due to his previous good character;

(2)        the Sub-Committee nevertheless expressed some concerns about the incident and reminds AAM to put the safety of a Police Officer first in any future incident;

(3)        the Sub-Committee also expresses concern about the failure of AAM to declare the points he had received on his licence;

(4)        the Sub-Committee also reminds AAM to ensure that he makes every effort in future to ensure he has an interpreter in similar situations.