Taxi licensing appeals: key principles

Forbes Regulatory team recently secured the successful dismissal of a private hire driver's appeal against the revocation of his licence by a local authority. The appeal raised a number of important issues concerning safeguarding, professional boundaries, the fit and proper person test, and the burden of proof in taxi licensing appeals. The decision provides a useful reminder of the wide discretion afforded to licensing authorities when making public safety decisions and the approach the Magistrates courts will adopt when considering appeals against revocation.

The appeal provided a useful reminder of several key principles governing taxi and private hire licensing:

Public safety remains paramount

The court reaffirmed that the primary purpose of the taxi licensing regime is the protection of the public. Licensing decisions are not punitive; they are protective. Local authorities are entitled, and indeed required, to take action where concerns arise regarding a driver's suitability to continue holding a licence.

The "fit and proper person" assessment

The case highlighted the broad discretion afforded to licensing authorities when assessing whether a driver remains a fit and proper person. The focus is on safeguarding and public confidence, particularly where drivers have unsupervised access to vulnerable members of the public.

The statutory and industry guidance test remains a powerful one: would a decision-maker be comfortable allowing a person for whom they care to travel alone with the licence holder?

Licensing decisions can rely on non-conviction evidence

An important aspect of the appeal was the court's consideration of evidence that had not resulted in criminal proceedings or a criminal conviction. The licensing regime operates on the civil standard of proof and councils are entitled to rely upon complaints, witness evidence submitted by way of hearsay evidence, admissions, documentary material and other relevant information when assessing public safety risks.

The appeal court conducts a fresh hearing

The appeal also reinforced the well-established principle that magistrates hear taxi licensing appeals by way of rehearing rather than simply reviewing the authority's decision-making process. However, proper regard should still be given to the licensing authority's expertise, policies and safeguarding responsibilities.

Burden of proof in taxi licensing appeals

The appeal also addressed the important issue of where the burden of proof lies in a driver licence appeal. The court accepted submissions that, whilst the appeal is conducted by way of a full rehearing, it remains for the appellant to satisfy the court that the licensing authority's decision was wrong. Reliance was placed on established appellate licensing principles, including R (Hope & Glory Public House Ltd) v Westminster Magistrates' Court and McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council, reinforcing the position that appellants bear the responsibility of persuading the court that a revocation decision should be overturned. The decision provides useful clarification in an area where competing arguments are sometimes advanced by Appellants that there is a reverse burden of proof on the Licensing Authority.

Ridwaan Omar is a partner and Head of Regulatory at Forbes Solicitors. Forbes Solicitors’ specialist Regulatory team regularly advises and represents local authorities in taxi and private hire licensing matters, including:

• Taxi licensing appeals before the Magistrates' Court and
• Enforcement prosecution action on behalf of Council’s for taxi/private hire driver related offences under the Town and Police Clauses Act and Equality Act.

For further information, please contact Ridwaan.