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 DHK.

The Licensing Unit officer addressed the Hearing Panel stating that DHK had submitted an application for a New Private Hire Driver Licence. As part of the application, DHK’s DBS showed a recent conviction for false imprisonment from 2018. DHK also had convictions for blackmail and assault causing actual bodily harm, but they ‘lay on file’. The Licensing Unit officer noted that it was unclear where this offence sat in Manchester’s policy and asked the panel to decide if DHK was, in their opinion, a fit and proper person to hold a Licence.

DHK addressed the Hearing Panel, noting they had been 18 years old at the time of the conviction. They had drove to a location with a family member whereby the victim was asked for money that was owed. Two other co-defendants arrived and one of them hit the victim, which started the incident.

The Licensing Unit officer questioned if DHK had plead guilty, if they knew the reason for the journey and if they were paid to be there. DHK had plead guilty but did not know the true reason for the journey. DHK stated they were told that the purpose was just to collect money for an insurance policy. DHK thought that they would collect the money and then DHK and their family member would go out for food.

The panel questioned if DHK did not think the incident was wrong at the time, whether they were in contact with the other co-defendants and if they were in work. DHK stated they had not been in the room whilst the worst of the incident occurred. DHK was no longer in contact with those involved. DHK had been in full-time employment since their release from prison.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that the Hearing Panel needed to decide where the conviction sat within the policy and if DHK was a fit and proper person to hold a Licence.

DHK summed up by stating they were young and naïve at the time. They had since learnt to take responsibility for their own actions. They noted they had been in full-time employment since their release, and that part of that employment had been working with vulnerable people.

In their deliberations, the panel considered its guidelines and accepted that the offence fell within the category of “offences against other persons” in its policy on convictions. With advice from their legal representative, the panel decided that the applicable tariff free of conviction would be the range of 3 to 5 years and therefore were satisfied that the conviction was now outside the guidelines. The panel were satisfied that DHK had turned their life around and had held full-time employment since their release. The panel also noted that DHK was no longer in contact with those involved.

Decision

To grant DHK with a Private Hire Driver Licence.