Richard Terry

6 Heol Y Bryn

Bryncwills

Sarn, Bridgend

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked the applicant he had a copy of the report if the details were correct. The applicant said he had a copy and the details were correct. He was then asked if he had received any convictions, penalties or ongoing matters since the report to which he replied no.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked the applicant to give his account of the conviction dated 18/08/1976 for ‘Handling’ as part of the Theft Act 1968.

The applicant explained that he was in school at the time. His friend had found some money on the floor and decided to split it with the applicant. The applicant said that the school must have though the money was stolen. The friend and the applicant were charged for it, fined £5 and paid £1.50 compensation.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked the applicant to give his account of the conviction dated 30/03/1983 for the offences relating to the Public Order Act 1936 and Criminal Damage Act 1971.

The applicant explained that he was around 19 years old at the time and attending a stag party. He was with group of around 12 people and they were under the influence of alcohol. They were all playing pranks on each other and ‘messing around and swearing’ and some of them in the group were pushed into a hedge. The whole group were charged because of this.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked the applicant to give his account of the conviction dated 02/03/2000 for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.

The applicant said at the time he was working for a lighting company that was contracted to the electric board. At the end of his work shift, he would take the equipment and vehicle home with him, he was given permission to do this by his boss.

One of his neighbours was complaining about the time of night he was arriving home which the neighbour believed was too late. He also complained that the applicant was taking equipment from the van, which he explained that he had permission for.

The applicant explained that he spoke to the son of the neighbour and he said he was the one passing the information on to his father who then made the complaints. The argument became heated until the son of the neighbour attempted to attack the applicant; he then defended himself and hit him back. He was charged for the attack and pleaded guilty for it.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked the applicant to give his account of the conviction dated 11/01/2016 for TT99 – “Totting Up”

The applicant explained he already had 3 points on his licence before this time. He then obtained 6 points on the motorway which occurred when he drove too fast during a temporary speed restriction, causing him to be almost 20mph over that limit. He explained that he was late for a job so did not pay attention to the temporary speed restriction but explained that he was within the national speed limit for motorways. He also stated that this conviction was not while driving a taxi nor did he have anyone in the vehicle.

He explained that the next 3 points were during the night with little to no traffic. He said that although he believed he was not a danger to anyone else, he agreed that this was no excuse to speed and understood it was a mistake to do so.

The Solicitor representing the applicant provided input into the discussion providing the Sub Committee a letter from an employer of a local taxi company. This letter detailed an employment guarantee for the applicant pending the Sub Committees decision. The Solicitor also explained that this employer had employed the applicant previously as a taxi driver. He went on to state that this emphasises the trust he has for the applicant as he is willing to employ him even after the DBS certificate results.

Following this letter, the Solicitor explained that the applicant was currently working with vulnerable adults in the care industry, the job was also given to him after the DBS certificate results which showed the position of trust he had been put in.

RESOLVED: The Sub Committee considered the application and the convictions listed in the report. They heard the evidence provided by the applicant and his Solicitor.

The Sub Committee considered the conviction for ABH and did not believe this formed any pattern of offences. As 2.8.2 of the policy stated the conviction had taken place 18 years ago, they did not believe the applicant posed a danger in this instant.

They considered the conviction for totting up and heard the evidence surrounding this. As 2.4.5 of the policy states a driver must be conviction free since the disqualification ended at which point they noted that there had been more than two years for the applicant.

The Sub Committee took this into consideration and were prepared to grant the licence.