The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Hearing Panel considered the content of the report and the written and oral representations made by the Licensing Unit officer and JMJ.

The Licensing Unit officer addressed the Hearing Panel stating that there were various criminal matters detailed on JMJ’s application confirmed as convictions for stalking, ABH, using violence to enter premises and breaches of non-molestation order.

JMJ addressed the Hearing Panel and confirmed that the incidents on the report were all correct and explained that they were all concerning a previous relationship which had started well but went badly over time. JMJ explained that they were the youngest in the relationship by 7 years and that the relationship commenced when JMJ was younger. JMJ listed the chronology of events starting with using violence to enter a premises, a Non-Molestation order and how they were encouraged to breach the order by the ex-partner. JMJ served time and was again encouraged by the ex-partner to spend time with them. JMJ breached the order once more after an argument by arriving at a location where it was known their ex-partner would be. JMJ confirmed that the order ends in August 2023 and that they now spend time with their child from this relationship. JMJ expressed to the Hearing Panel that they had worked on improving their character and were in full time employment. A supporting letter from JMJ’s probation officer was handed to the Hearing Panel.

In responding to questions from the Licensing Unit officer, JMJ stated that the ex-partner had tried to have the order removed, that the ex-partner, their parent and neighbour had reported JMJ, that the ABH report stated JMJ had grabbed and dragged their ex-partner which JMJ did not agree with, that JMJ had made a guilty plea, that the ex-partner had sent encouraging messages over text and social media messaging and that it was naïve to have breached the order, that JMJ is good at following orders from officials and had taken note of the judge’s comments regarding the order that it was JMJ’s responsibility, not the ex-partners to uphold this.

In responding to further questions JMJ stated that they had undertaken lots of driving in their current job and found it to be enjoyable, one of JMJ’s colleagues had recommended taxi work as a flexible way of working, that they had researched the process fully and was aware that their record would be scrutinised, that JMJ only wished to work for Manchester city council, that they would split both jobs part-time if the licence were to be granted and stated that there were still rehabilitation sessions for JMJ to attend due to a missed letter from the service. JMJ stated that they had made arrangements for the remaining sessions to be held in the evenings so they could attend.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel considered JMJ’s history and noted that, whilst the convictions were very concerning, all of them were regarding one individual in an emotional setting. The Hearing Panel noted that JMJ had been very open and honest, showing clear remorse for their actions and felt certain that JMJ had made great steps and showed a commitment to improving their ways. The Hearing Panel took notice of the time remaining for rehabilitation with regards to policy guideline aims but felt that JMJ was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Decision

To grant JMJ with a licence.