Minutes:
The Chair invited Elaine Moreton, Section Leader (Licensing) and the Applicant (ME) into the Hearing, made introductions and outlined the procedure to be followed.
The Section Leader (Licensing), outlined the report regarding an application for a Private Hire Driver Licence, which had been circulated to all parties in advance of the meeting. The matter had been referred to the Sub-Committee in accordance with Guidelines Relating to Relevance of Convictions and Breaches of Licence Conditions, specifically paragraph 5.1.9.
All parties were invited to question the Section Leader (Licensing) on the report. No questions were asked.
ME confirmed that the information contained within the report was accurate.
The Chair invited ME to make representations.
ME said that the relevant conviction happened around Christmas 2012 and he was cautioned in 2013. He had worked for the same company in Bristol for around 12 years, holding a relevant degree for the profession. He worked on a high security site which required clearances so he had a DBS check every year. His wife was diagnosed with grade 3 cancer and was told that action needed to be taken very quickly. It was a very stressful time, with ME working 7pm-7am shifts 4 or 5 nights a week, sometimes even 7 nights if cover was required. He had to drive his wife to her hospital appointments and had a 10 month old baby to look after. All of this resulted in ME not being of clear mind through a lack of sleep.
On the night of the incident, ME had been allowed to leave work early, at 3 am, so that he could catch up on sleep. As he drove home along a main road, not a red light district, a young lady came out of a telephone box and flagged him down. Thinking that she had a problem, he stopped the car (ME added that she was not under age nor was he on the sex offenders register). The lady got in the car and asked what she could do for ME. It was at that point that he realised that she was a working girl so he explained that he was not looking for any “services”. She asked if he had a cigarette, he gave one to her and they began to talk. At that point a Police car pulled up behind him. He tried to explain to the Police that he hadn’t engaged in any sexual activity and they were just having a cigarette. They could see his uniform and so knew that he had just finished work. They gave him two options – he could be arrested and the case would go to the Crown Court or he could accept a caution. He couldn’t take the option of being arrested as he had a sick wife and a child to care for so he accepted the caution without realising that it would be on record for so long. He signed it in the January and attended a rehabilitation course.
All parties were invited to question the Applicant on his submission.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, ME stated the following:
· He no longer worked for the same company but that was unrelated to the caution.
· He lived 2.7 miles from his workplace. He wasn’t rushing home as there was no traffic on the roads.
· The lady was not dressed as you may expect a prostitute to be. She was wearing a pink tracksuit, gymwear.
· The phone box that she came out of was on ME’s right hand side and he stopped around 2 to 3 metres away. She walked over and got into the car. He didn’t challenge her as he genuinely believed that she was in trouble and he had seen her approaching the car in his rear view mirror.
· He could see how the situation could be perceived but at the time he was emotionally distressed. In Bristol he had no family other than his wife, they lived there due to his work, who were refusing to give him unpaid leave. It was a very stressful time and he needed to speak to someone but his mates/colleagues at work were busy on the weekends and didn’t want to hear negative stories or be around negative energy. He knew it was not right but he needed someone to talk to.
· It was a stupid decision to accept a caution but he needed to look after the baby while his wife received treatment. It was the easy option for practical reasons.
· His employer wouldn’t give him unpaid leave and his wife’s treatment took two years. Following that, she insisted that they divorce. He had to pay child maintenance so took a job doing night deliveries in a van. It was then that he was convicted for speeding. He had been returning from Wales on a clear road but one on which the speed limit had been reduced from 60 mph down to 50 mph due to roadworks. He appealed but lost and received a ticket and a fine.
· He had never picked up a prostitute before and hadn’t done so knowingly on the occasion for which he was convicted. He had been genuinely unlucky.
In response to questions from the Lead Lawyer, ME stated the following:
· He accepted the caution in the January rather than pleading not guilty as he was thinking only about his wife and baby. If the matter had gone to Court it could have made the local press. He had incorrectly thought that the caution would be spent after 3 years.
In response to questions from the Section Leader (Licensing), ME stated the following:
· He had taken his usual route home from work.
· The prostitute had been in his car for a very short time, around 5 minutes, when the Police arrived. Afterwards he had the feeling that it could have been a set-up, that she was working with the Police.
· He hadn’t asked her to leave the car as his state of mind was such that he wanted someone to talk to.
· Should he be granted a Licence he hoped to work through Uber.
The Chair invited MR to make a final statement. ME said that he was 100% genuine. He had been out of work for 6 or 7 months and was paying child maintenance. His previously employer was not currently taking on but he was tied to the area as he wanted to see his kids at the weekends. He asked that the Sub-Committee please give him a chance.
ME and the Section Leader (Licensing) left the room to allow the Sub-Committee to determine the matter.
The Chair invited ME and the Section Leader (Licensing) back into the Hearing.
The Chair detailed the decision of the Sub-Committee.
Resolved: That, having considered all the evidence presented at the Hearing, both written and oral, the Sub-Committee is not satisfied that ME a fit and proper person and therefore, in accordance with Section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, have decided not to grant ME a Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Licence. This decision is made in accordance with paragraph 5.1.9 of the guidelines relating to relevance of convictions and breaches of licence conditions agreed by the Licence Committee on 25 July 2012.
The Applicant has a right of appeal, against the decision of the Sub-Committee, to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of this decision.
ME and the Section Leader (Licensing) left the room.
Supporting documents: