Pinnington v Transport for London

In deciding whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence, a licensing court must assess the underlying conduct and all relevant circumstances. The mere existence of a conviction, or the penalty imposed, is not automatically determinative. Relevant matters may include the nature and quantity of drugs, their purpose, the sentence, the applicant’s honesty and any extenuating circumstances. A licensing policy must be applied consistently with the statutory question and cannot replace that assessment. A failure to renew a licence may be relevant, particularly where it creates insurance or regulatory concerns, but an isolated administrative lapse will not necessarily establish unfitness.

This was an appeal by way of case stated by a taxi driver whose application for a new licence had been refused by Transport for London. The refusal followed his conviction for possessing cannabis plants which he had intended to dispose of after his father’s death, and his earlier failure to renew his licence, during which he drove unlicensed for five months.

The magistrates held that the conviction and sentence, together with the licensing irregularity, meant that he was not a fit and proper person. The central issue was whether they were entitled to reach that conclusion for the reasons given.

1. Appeal allowed. The certified question had to be answered in the negative because the words “for the reasons given” referred to all the magistrates’ reasons. If one material reason was legally flawed, the answer was no.
2. The statutory question was whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence. Consistently with McCool v Ruscliffe Borough Council and Leeds City Council v Hussain, the assessment focused principally on the impact of the applicant’s vehicle and character on members of the public, especially passengers. Personal circumstances could nevertheless be relevant in rare cases to explain or excuse conduct.
3. The magistrates were entitled to treat the conviction as the starting point, and could not go behind it. They erred by treating the existence of the conviction and sentence as sufficient in themselves. They failed to address the extenuating circumstances, including that the cannabis was neither for supply nor personal use, that the applicant intended to destroy it, that the sentence was unduly harsh, and that he had candidly admitted his guilt. That approach was also inconsistent with Transport for London’s policy, which required consideration of the nature and quantity of the drugs, their purpose and the sentence imposed.
4. The failure to renew the licence was a serious regulatory matter and could have implications for insurance and passenger protection. It was not, however, sufficient on these facts, standing alone, to establish that the applicant was unfit. It was a first occurrence, renewal was administrative rather than a fresh safety assessment, and the applicant’s father’s illness and death, together with the applicant’s depression and the period during which he did not drive, were relevant circumstances.
5. The court directed Transport for London to issue a licence, subject to satisfactory medical and CRB checks and confirmation that the applicant’s knowledge was up to date.

• City of London Magistrates’ Court: On 14 August 2012, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against Transport for London’s refusal to issue a taxi-driver’s licence.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the case-stated appeal and directed Transport for London to issue a licence subject to conditions.