Agenda item

Mr Masud

Louis Krog, Business Support and Licensing Team Leader introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.  An application had been received from Mr Nadeem Masud for a Private Hire driver’s licence.

Mr Masud has a number of convictions which are detailed in the background papers.

Louis Krog detailed the policy considerations and referred Members to point 3.10 of the report which states “An application will also normally be refused where the applicant has a conviction for an offence or similar offence(s) or offence(s) which replace the below offences and the conviction is less than 5 years prior to the date of application:

·        S5 Public Order Act 1986 offence (harassment, alarm or distress) ”

Louis Krog also referred Member to point 3.4 of the report which states the overriding consideration is the safety of the public.

Mr Masud attended the Committee and spoke in support of his application.

He said that during the last 8 years he had been working as a delivery driver.

Members asked the following questions;

• A Member stated that the case had been to Court on three occasions and asked why Mr Masud pleaded guilty at the last Court case.
• Mr Masud explained that each time he went to Court he was charged £150.00 and the offence was under Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
• When asked how the Police became involved in the incident detailed in the background papers, Mr Masud said the girls had reported the incident to the Police.  The girls did not attend two Court case hearings resulting in the case being adjourned and Mr Masud being fined £150.00 on each occasion.
• A Member stated that the Committee were in a difficult position.  The Member did not know why the applicant had not asked for the Court decision to be overturned by means of an Appeal.
• Louis Krog reminded Members that it was not for the Committee to decided if the conviction was justified or whether the Courts’ were right in prosecuting him.  The Committee should determine the application based on the facts and determine his fitness to be licensed as a driver.
• Mr Masud advised the Committee that he had been in ill health due to being assaulted in October last year.  This assault had resulted in Mr Masud being signed of work for 2 months with fractures to his face.  Mr Masud stated he had brought a copy of his medical report and recent payslips if Members wanted to look at them.  Mr Masud said his doctor had stated he needed an easier job now which would ease the pain in his face.
• A Member asked why Mr Masud had made an application and attended the Committee today even though this went against the current policy in relation to his conviction.  The time period still had one more year to lapse before Members could consider an application like this.
• Mr Masud said he needed to get a less strenuous job to make money to help his family and to live a respectable life.

Members were advised they had two recommendations to vote on;

1. That Mr Masud’s application be granted as Mr Masud is a fit and proper person.
2. That Mr Masud’s application be refused on the grounds that Mr Masud is deemed not to be a fit and proper person.

Upon a vote it was (5 for, 4 against)

RESOLVED that Mr Masud’s application be granted as Mr Masud is a fit and proper person.