Meeting documents

None received.

There were no interests declared.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report which asked members to determine whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a Hackney Carriage driver's licence. He gave background details and highlighted the options available to members.

In response to a question from the applicant's current employer, the Licensing Enforcement Officer advised that the wording at paragraph 4.5 of the report was a directive of the High Court.

The applicant's current employer made representations on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the majority of the information was as per the previous application, however there were some clear differences. Since then, the applicant had been working for South Derbyshire District Council with no complaints, and the medical report confirmed that the applicant was fit and there were no side effects from the medication. He had worked hard in the last 12 months and had attained an NVQ in passenger carrying.

The applicant wished to apologise that he had previously refused to answer a question regarding his previous employment, however he was unable to answer as his appeal was ongoing at that time.

The applicant's current employer stated that everyone deserved a second chance. He added that the ABH offence had taken place in 2005 and he felt it was unfair to keep bringing it up as the guidelines stated that offences that were committed over 3 years ago should not be taken into consideration.

The applicant's current employer stated that the applicant had co-operated with everything that had been asked of him by the Council, and he wished to work in his local area. He had full remorse for his previous actions. The applicant's current employer asked the committee to consider granting the licence with strict guidelines as to future conduct.

The Legal Advisor explained that members could take into account any offences outside of the 3 years dependent on the seriousness of the offence. She added that members would consider what weight should be given to the offence taking into consideration the representations made, and the information contained in the agenda.

In response to questions from members, the applicant stated the following:

- He had not applied to renew his licence at South Derbyshire as he did not wish to renew it if his application was successful.

- If the application was granted, he would work at 59 Cars in Ashby de la Zouch.

- The medical assessment had been undertaken at Derby as the fee was significantly less.

- He had not given details of his consultant on the application form as he did not feel it was necessary.

- South Derbyshire District Council did not raise a query regarding the previous refusal of an application. The decision to permit his licence was an officer decision.

- An anger management course had been mentioned but this had not been progressed.

In response to questions from the Licensing Enforcement Officer, the applicant stated the following:

- A medical consultation was undertaken every 6 months and he was hoping that his medication would be further reduced at his consultation next month.

- If a difficult situation with a passenger was to arise, he would not get involved, and would refer the query back to the office, or to the Police if appropriate.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer and the applicant did not wish to give a closing statement.

At 7.20pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision. The meeting reconvened at 7.45pm.