To consider
an application by Mr A
(separate
copy for sub-committee members only)
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. He highlighted that the
decision would be made in accordance with Gwynedd Council's licensing
policy. It was noted that the purpose of
the policy was to set guidelines for the criteria when considering the applicant's
application and the aim was to protect the public by ensuring that:
• A person is a fit and proper person
• The person does not pose a threat to the public
• That the public are safeguarded from dishonest persons
• The safeguarding of children and young people
• The safeguarding of vulnerable persons
• The public have confidence in their use of licensed vehicles.
The Licensing Officer presented the written report on the application
received from Mr A for a hackney/private hire driver's licence. The
Sub-committee was requested to consider the application in accordance with the
DBS record, and the guidelines on relevant criminal offences and convictions.
The applicant was invited to expand on his application and provide
information about the background of the offences and also his personal
circumstances. He noted that he had experience of driving a car for work and
that was at night. He highlighted that a
local company had offered him a job if his application was to be successful.
The applicant withdrew from the room whilst the
Sub-committee members discussed the application.
RESOLVED that the
applicant was a fit and proper person to be issued with a hackney
vehicle/private hire driver's licence from Gwynedd Council.
In reaching their decision, the Sub-committee considered the following:
• the requirements of the 'Gwynedd Council's
Licensing Policy for Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles'
• the applicant's application form
• verbal observations presented by the applicant
during the hearing
• the Licensing Department's report along with the
DBS statement disclosing convictions.
Specific consideration was given to the following matters.
The applicant had received a formal warning from North Wales Police
(February 2015) on two charges concerning the possession of drugs contrary to
section 5 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The applicant
received a conviction from Gwynedd Magistrates' Court (January 2016) on two
charges of being in possession of goods with a false trade mark to be sold or
hired contrary to section 92 (1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. He received a
12 month community order together with an order to pay costs, unpaid work and a
victims surcharge.
Paragraph
2.2 of the Council's Policy was considered, this states that a person with a
conviction for a serious offence need not be automatically barred from
obtaining a licence, but would normally be expected to remain free of
conviction for an appropriate period as stated in the Policy, and to show
evidence that he/she was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The applicant has a responsibility to show
that he/she is a fit and proper person.
Paragraph
4.5 of the Council policy was considered which states that the Rehabilitation
of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002 allows the
Sub-committee to take into account all convictions recorded against an
applicant, whether spent or otherwise under the 1974 Act.
Paragraph 8 of the Policy states that an application
will normally be refused where the applicant has a conviction that is less than
3 years prior to the date of application for a crime regarding dishonesty.
Paragraph 9.4 of
the Policy states that an application will normally be refused where the applicant
has an isolated conviction for an offence related to the possession of drugs
within the last 3 years. It was also noted that the nature of the drugs in
question should be considered.
Paragraph 17 of
the Policy notes that an applicant with a conviction is unlikely to be granted
a licence unless a period of at least 12 months has elapsed since the most
recent breach.
The Sub-committee concluded that the warning in 2015 concerned drugs, however,
as the offence had occurred 3 years and 7 months ago, the period of three years
had elapsed. Therefore, there was no
reason to refuse the application.
In considering
the 2016 conviction the Sub-committee needed to see if the conviction fell
under the Policy's dishonesty provisions. Following legal advice, it was
highlighted that dishonesty under section 92 (1) (c) did not need to be proven
under the Trade Marks Act 1994. It was
concluded that the ban under section 8 of the Policy was not relevant to this
conviction. The general provision under
section 17 of the Policy was considered, however, as the conviction was in
relation to an offence that had occurred over 3 years ago, there was no grounds
to refuse the application.
The Sub-committee
was also grateful to the applicant for being open and honest when he explained
the circumstances of the convictions.
The Solicitor reported that the
decision would be confirmed formally by letter to the applicant and that he
also had the right to appeal against the Sub-committee's decision within 21
days of receiving the letter.