Taxi driver licensing
On an application for a licence to drive a private hire vehicle, an applicant must show that he or she is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. If the application is refused by the local authority, the applicant may appeal to the magistrates' court (with a further appeal to the Crown Court). Before the courts, the local authority may seek to rebut the applicant's claim to be a fit and proper person by adducing evidence relating to an incident in respect of which the applicant has been convicted, even though his or her conviction may have been quashed on appeal as being unsafe. Although the substance of what the local authority seeks to establish would (in such an instance) amount to a criminal offence, nevertheless the civil standard of proof would apply (R v Maidstone Crown Court, ex p Olson [1992] The Times, 21 May).

It would appear this is saying being found not guilty can still lead a council to take a negative view of the applicant.

In the situation as outlined above, has the person actually been found not guilty? Does quoshing a previous conviction mean that the person is not guilty or that the verdict is as it says unsafe?

In the situation as outlined above, has the person actually been found not guilty? Does quashing a previous conviction mean that the person is not guilty or that the verdict is as it says unsafe?

Its the criminal burden of proof as opposed to the civil.

Madstone V olson is an inportment case along with Benson That is why I need it it is for a case that I think we can win over sec 61.2(b). I cant say much more openly on here

In the case above (I think), the person was found not guilty on the criminal charge.

In the case above, the person was found guilty but the conviction was later quoshed as unsafe. Is that the same as being found not guilty?

Yes.

well as far as the court are consirned it is, but Council still can take a different view and still revoke and often do a diffrent barden of proff.