Applicant loses appeal against refusal to issue taxi driver’s licence

Salisbury Crown Court heard an appeal on Thursday 2 January 2025 against the refusal of Test Valley Borough Council to issue a taxi driver’s licence.

Mr C had applied to the Council in 2023 for a driver licence. His initial application omitted details of previous criminal convictions although in an interview with a Licensing Officer he subsequently admitted that he had convictions. He wrongly believed that only a basic criminal records disclosure was needed and as such his previous convictions were spent. When some months later an enhanced disclosure was received these revealed several convictions albeit from many years ago.

As the disclosure revealed convictions for more than one violent offence the application was refused in line with the Council’s Policy which states “a licence will not normally be granted if an applicant has more than one conviction for an offence of a violent nature.” The applicant’s failure to initially disclose the offences was also taken into consideration when deciding to refuse the application.

Mr C appealed the decision which was heard before North West Hampshire Magistrates in April 2024. After hearing all the evidence, the magistrates dismissed the appeal; consideration had been given to Mr C’s previous convictions and the fact that the requirement to list these was not complied with. They commented that the application form was clear that if there had EVER been convictions they needed to be listed.

Mr C subsequently appealed that decision to the Crown Court. The Court listened very carefully to evidence and submissions bearing in mind that the burden of proof was on Mr C to prove the Council’s decision that he was not a fit and proper person was incorrect. The Court focussed on two main issues which potentially go together; firstly, the completion of the original application and, second, the convictions themselves.

As far as the form was concerned, it contained a question about previous convictions which on the face of it is relatively clear (asking the applicant to detail if they had “EVER” had any convictions plus an explanatory note that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not apply) which was left blank. Mr C argued that in a meeting with the Licensing Officer he had volunteered the information that he had convictions whereas the Council argued it had sought the information. In any event this started the process of making an enhanced DBS check which showed he had several convictions for different categories of violent offences between 34-44 years prior to application. That led in part to the refusal of his application for a licence. Mr C also submitted that in 2017 he had been granted a driver licence by a neighbouring authority; in his view that showed he was fit and proper.

The officer with delegated authority to decide the application also based her decision on the fact that the form had not been completed and took the view there had been deliberate misleading.  

Ultimately the Court was of the opinion that Mr C had not discharged the burden of proving that the Council decision was wrong. It was difficult to say had the form been completed properly whether that would have led the Council to disapply the policy as  the convictions were extremely old. The Court heard evidence of how the applicant had led a good life since then but did not need to decide whether not completing the form properly of itself would have justified refusal. The Court took the view that looking at all factors, bearing in mind the burden of proof, Mr C had not discharged that burden and upheld the original decision. The Court did comment that it may well be that future applications supported by proper evidence and filled in properly may show he is a fit and proper person.

The court dismissed the appeal, although unfortunately a costs order was not successful.

The applicant represented himself. Test Valley Borough Council was represented by Matt Lewin of Cornerstone Barristers.