County of Herefordshire District Council v Prosser

In deciding whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle driver’s licence, all previous convictions may be relevant where they bear on trust, propriety or public safety. Convictions cannot be treated as irrelevant merely because they would ordinarily have become spent. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002 excludes such drivers from the ordinary spent-conviction regime. A court must assess the convictions and any mitigating evidence, but must apply the correct statutory framework and give proper weight to public safety.

The Council refused Mr Prosser’s application for a dual hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver’s licence because of his extensive criminal record. The Hereford Magistrates’ Court allowed his appeal, finding that his convictions were spent, relatively less serious and outweighed by his subsequent conduct and efforts at rehabilitation.

The Council appealed by way of case stated. The central issues were whether the magistrates had failed properly to consider the convictions, whether they had wrongly treated them as spent, whether they had relied on irrelevant driving qualifications, and whether there was evidence supporting their conclusion that Mr Prosser was a fit and proper person.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates had erred in law on the principal issues. The decision was reversed rather than remitted.
2. The convictions could not properly be described as being at the lesser end of the spectrum. Several had resulted in imprisonment, probation or substantial community service. Viewed collectively, they were incompatible with the significant element of trust imposed on a licensed driver and with the overriding consideration of public safety.
3. None of the recorded convictions was irrelevant. The magistrates were required to consider their relevance to Mr Prosser’s fitness and propriety. The correct question was not whether the convictions had become spent, but whether the convictions remained relevant and whether other evidence outweighed them.
4. By operation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002, hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers were regulated occupations within Schedule 1 Part III of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The convictions therefore had not become spent for this purpose. The approach in Bernard Charles Adamson v Waveney District Council was not relevant in the light of the 2002 Order.
5. The magistrates’ reference to the respondent’s motorcycle test was not strictly relevant to carrying passengers in a motor car. However, the criticism of that aspect of their reasoning did not establish an error affecting the result. The case stated questions were answered A1: yes, A2: no, and B: no. There was no order as to costs.

• Hereford Magistrates’ Court: allowed Mr Prosser’s appeal against refusal of the dual driver’s licence on 18 July 2006.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Council’s appeal by way of case stated, answered the material questions in the Council’s favour, and reversed the magistrates’ decision.