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

The Applicant attends with another a friend to translate but was advised this was not appropriate and the Clerk to the Committee arranged for an authorised Urdu interpreter to attend.

At the hearing, The Applicant also provided the following documentation:

Written explanation; references; Uber documentation and financial documentation.

The Committee was made aware that the Applicant had appeared before the Greater Manchester Magistrates’ Court in respect of four allegations of domestic related Common Assaults and was convicted on the 8^th of January 2019 and sentenced to a Community penalty for each offence, (to run concurrently), on the 30^th of January. The Applicant notified the Authority of the conviction on the 20^th of February.

The Applicant explained to the Committee he had come to this country 20 years previously, until these convictions he had been of good character both here and in Pakistan and had also not accumulated any motoring convictions. He had carried out 9000 jobs with Uber and worked with Street Cars for 14 years without any complaints. He had worked as a bus driver without any complaints. This was only incident.

Of the four convictions, he explained one was in relation to his daughter whom had disrespected him when she was told to go to her room and he had only taken hold of her arm; there was no other force, no incident and no injury; she had given evidence at the trial.

The three other allegations were made by his wife and he disputed these in their entirety, maintained she had not given evidence at his trial; stated his daughter hadn’t given evidence against him in this regard but he had been convicted.

He maintained the allegations by his wife were malicious as a result of debts accrued in connection with family land in Pakistan. Both he and his wife had entered into IVA’s which ultimately meant they could not re-mortgage the house and had resulted in the mortgage company instigating steps to repossess the house.

His wife had been angry and blamed him; locked him in the marital home and made false allegations to the police.

The Committee noted the Applicant had stated on his notification form that bruising to the upper arm was entered in relation to injuries to the victim. The Applicant disputed this stating someone else had completed the form for him.

The Committee were of the opinion that notwithstanding the explanation provided by the Applicant, he had been convicted of four separate assaults on three different dates and had been convicted after a trial. The Committee could not go behind those convictions.

The Committee did not accept the explanation proffered by the Applicant and did not find it credible. Thereafter the Committee applied the statement of policy and guidelines noting the conviction date, (and the actual offence dates), were within the previous twelve months.

Although there was some mitigation in respect of the Applicant’s previous good character, this was not sufficient in the circumstances to depart the policy and due to the number of allegations, they did not feel this could be treated as an ‘isolated incident’. They found the Applicant not to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of holding a private hire licence.

Decision

To refuse to grant the renewal