To consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 excluding the press and public from the meeting during consideration of item 3 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public were excluded from the meeting during consideration of the item of business at minute no LAHP.16 on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act as the Panel was satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

Report of the Executive Director

The subject of the decision:

The Panel was asked to consider whether to grant or refuse an application for a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence submitted by the applicant (“Mr G”). 

Alternative options considered:

The Panel considered the options outlined in the Executive Director’s report.  The Panel was not satisfied that Mr G was a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence.  In accordance with section 51(1)(a) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the licensing authority cannot grant a licence where it is not satisfied the applicant is fit and proper person.

The reason for the decision:

The Panel considered the Executive Director’s report, Mr G’s application for a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence, the Disclosure and Barring Service (“DBS”) enhanced criminal record check for Mr G, oral representations from Mr G, the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy and the relevant legislation.

The Panel reached the following conclusions:

·         The Panel considered the Disclosure and Barring Service enhanced criminal record check for Mr G and was satisfied that the racially-aggravated offence, which Mr G received a caution for in 2013, was relevant for determining an application for a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence.  The Panel noted that the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy guidelines state that a licence will not normally be granted where the applicant has a conviction for a racially-aggravated offence in the five year period prior to the date of the application and that cautions will be taken into consideration in the same way that they would be if there was a conviction.

·         Mr G informed the Panel that the racially-aggravated offence in 2013 was as a result of Mr G being subject to an inappropriate comment of a racist nature. Before a caution can be administered, the police would not only need to be satisfied that the offence could be proved beyond reasonable doubt but they must also be satisfied that there has been an admission of guilt.  Mr G’s mitigation was not therefore accepted by the Panel. Furthermore, the Panel noted that there was evidence of an allegation of Mr G making a similar racist comment in 2012 which provides some corroborative evidence that the 2013 offence was not a one-off incident and that Mr G does speak to the public in such a manner.  The Panel was concerned that both of these incident involved Mr G’s passengers and therefore the potential risk to the public had to be considered when determining Mr G’s application. 

·         The Panel considered the evidence in relation to Mr G’s licensing history. The Panel noted that Mr G was referred to Stockton Borough Council’s Licensing Committee on four separate occasions between 2007 and 2013. During this period, the Committee considered Mr G’s conduct, his short temper and his attitude towards women and members of the public. It also considered a fixed penalty notice for swearing at a police officer, a  ...  view the full minutes text for item LAHP.16