Cofnodion:
Jennens Shelley Geeraerts
2 Ty-Bryn Cottages
Hendre Road
Pencoed
The applicant was present in support of his application.
The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Geeraerts if the details in the report were correct, and if there were any matters pending against him through the Courts, to which he replied yes and no, respectively.
She then advised him that following a Disclosure and Barring check having been made against him, that this had disclosed that on 7 April 2018 he had been Cautioned for Battery, and she asked Mr. Geeraerts to give an account of the circumstances that had led to this offence.
Mr. Geeraerts confirmed that this had been issued to him by the South Wales Police, following an incident that had taken place between his ex-girlfriend and himself outside their house. He continued by stating that they had an argument following which he tried to leave the premises, but firstly, he needed to collect some of his possessions from there. This was when she had called the Police claiming that he had assaulted her. When the Police asked her if she wished to take the matter further, she replied that she didn’t, as this could result in the issuing of a Court Order. Mr Geeraerts claimed that he had not assaulted his ex-partner
The Legal Officer advised Mr. Geeraerts that he must have admitted to what he had done, ie being cautioned for Battery, otherwise the Police would have not cautioned him for this.
Mr. Geeraerts claimed that though the argument between him and his ex-girlfriend had been a heated one, he had not used any physical violence against her.
The Legal Officer contended this, adding that if it was Battery there must have been some physical contact made against his ex-girlfriend.
Mr. Geeraerts advised that his ex-girlfriend did have scram marks on her hand, but this had been done by the cat next door to where she lived.
Regardless of whether or not Mr. Geeraerts had made any physical contact against his ex-girlfriend, the Legal Office emphasised that he must have admitted to the Police he had, or the Caution would have not been for an incident of Battery.
Mr. Geeraerts advised that he had admitted being verbally aggressive to the Police, but he stressed once more that he had not made any physical contact against his partner at the time, other than possibly shoving her out of the way, in order that he could proceed to leave the premises. He added that she subsequently dropped the charges in any event.
He apologised to her and assured the Police that there would not be a repeat of the incident.
The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Geeraerts if he had a job to go to if his application proved successful, to which he replied that he had, with Valley Cars.
The Chairperson asked Mr. Geeraerts if the Police had fully explained to him the meaning and definition of the Caution ie for Battery when they interviewed him after the offence had taken place.
Mr. Geeraerts advised that he believed they had, though it was hard for him to recall as at the time of the offence he had been suffering from mental health problems.
Officers and the applicant then retired in order that Members could consider the application further. Upon their return to the meeting, it was
RESOLVED: The Sub-Committee considered the application for a taxi licence made by Mr. JS Geeraerts and heard his explanation for the Caution he received in April 2018.
The Sub-Committee have taken into consideration their Licensing Policy at 2.8.1, 2.8.2, 2.8.3 and 2.8.5.
The Sub-Committee have to be satisfied that Mr. Geeraerts is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, and were concerned that he had recently received a caution for Battery and actually applied for a taxi licence nineteen days after the incident.
The Sub-Committee were not satisfied that he is a fit and proper person, because he needed to be responsible as a taxi driver for members of the public to include persons under the age of eighteen and vulnerable adults.
The Sub-Committee therefore refused the application.