Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:26 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:14 am
Posts: 267
Anyone have any idea what the out come would be on a current PHV driver, who's DBS has been clear of previous convictions in the past from over 30 years ago but resurfaced on the latest DBS due to a "change" in government policy, which have never been declared to the LA?

_________________
now a licensed hackney driver


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:06 pm
Posts: 22000
Location: A City near Birmingham
agabbycabbie wrote:
Anyone have any idea what the out come would be on a current PHV driver, who's DBS has been clear of previous convictions in the past from over 30 years ago but resurfaced on the latest DBS due to a "change" in government policy, which have never been declared to the LA?


should have spoke up from the start but they should always have been on the DBS

and i should know :mrgreen:

_________________
Freedom is never free


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:14 am
Posts: 267
I don't think CRB/DBS had started when they did.
I can imagine they will have a talking to them about it, but would they revoke the licence after 30 years blemish free cabbing?

_________________
now a licensed hackney driver


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 1642
agabbycabbie wrote:
I don't think CRB/DBS had started when they did.
I can imagine they will have a talking to them about it, but would they revoke the licence after 30 years blemish free cabbing?



Really do not know,but when filling forms in you must have when asked any convictions put No,think you should discuss this with a legal beagle.
I know several licensed drivers who have convictions on their CRB/DBS a lot older than 30 years and have always been shown on then since day one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:36 pm
Posts: 783
heathcote wrote:
agabbycabbie wrote:
I don't think CRB/DBS had started when they did.
I can imagine they will have a talking to them about it, but would they revoke the licence after 30 years blemish free cabbing?



Really do not know,but when filling forms in you must have when asked any convictions put No,think you should discuss this with a legal beagle.
I know several licensed drivers who have convictions on their CRB/DBS a lot older than 30 years and have always been shown on then since day one.

I can’t renemember exactly when it changed (It May have been standard to enhanced, it was that long ago!) I have an offence from years back that I never had to declare ( under the rehabilitation of offenders act ) some time later I was told I had to declare it but it’s never been a problem and it’s never even been mentioned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:06 pm
Posts: 22000
Location: A City near Birmingham
agabbycabbie wrote:
I don't think CRB/DBS had started when they did.
I can imagine they will have a talking to them about it, but would they revoke the licence after 30 years blemish free cabbing?


but youve renewed your badge a few times with plenty of opportunity to fess up

_________________
Freedom is never free


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 42904
Location: 1066 Country
agabbycabbie wrote:
Anyone have any idea what the out come would be on a current PHV driver, who's DBS has been clear of previous convictions in the past from over 30 years ago but resurfaced on the latest DBS due to a "change" in government policy, which have never been declared to the LA?

Depends on the nature of the previous conviction, and the circumstances around said conviction.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 12484
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
I take it the relevant LA moved from basic to enhanced DBS which is why this came up ?

I think only an experienced taxi solicitor would know the answer but either way it has not been declared and we all have to sign a statement saying that we have declared everything. That said as Sussex says if it was something quite minor I think the council might be lenient if there is a blemish free career since

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 3365
edders23 wrote:
I think only an experienced taxi solicitor would know the answer...


Experienced licensing solicitor would certainly be able to provide better *advice*, but at the end of the day it's up to licensing councillors to decide these things, so you're in the lap of the gods... :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:06 pm
Posts: 22000
Location: A City near Birmingham
StuartW wrote:
edders23 wrote:
I think only an experienced taxi solicitor would know the answer...


Experienced licensing solicitor would certainly be able to provide better *advice*, but at the end of the day it's up to licensing councillors to decide these things, so you're in the lap of the gods... :wink:



they only THINK they are God

_________________
Freedom is never free


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm
Posts: 1412
x-ray wrote:
heathcote wrote:
agabbycabbie wrote:
I don't think CRB/DBS had started when they did.
I can imagine they will have a talking to them about it, but would they revoke the licence after 30 years blemish free cabbing?



Really do not know,but when filling forms in you must have when asked any convictions put No,think you should discuss this with a legal beagle.
I know several licensed drivers who have convictions on their CRB/DBS a lot older than 30 years and have always been shown on then since day one.

I can’t renemember exactly when it changed (It May have been standard to enhanced, it was that long ago!) I have an offence from years back that I never had to declare ( under the rehabilitation of offenders act ) some time later I was told I had to declare it but it’s never been a problem and it’s never even been mentioned.



https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cas ... dgment.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm
Posts: 1412
The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of three people who claimed their lives were blighted by past minor criminal convictions.

The judges found the way the criminal records are disclosed to employers infringed human rights.

The government will have to consider reform of the system, said BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman.

The charity Unlock said the ruling stands to affect thousands of people with old and minor criminal records.

Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said that criminal checks leave many people "unnecessarily anchored to their past".

He claims that in the past five years alone, more than a million youth criminal records were disclosed on standard or enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks that related to offences from more than 30 years ago.

Criminal record disclosure checks ruled unlawful
Supreme Court justices found that the criminal records disclosure scheme was "disproportionate" in two respects.

These were that all previous convictions should be disclosed, however minor, where the person has more than one conviction, and also in the case of warnings and reprimands issued to young offenders.

They announced their decision on Wednesday following the government challenge against a Court of Appeal judgment in 2017 over the legality of the scheme.

The appeal ruling backed the High Court's 2016 finding that the scheme was "not in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to private life.

The children's charity Just for Kids Law, which brought one of the cases to court, had argued that DBS checks fail to treat children differently to adults.

Its CEO Enver Soloman said the "landmark judgement" would benefit thousands of children issued with cautions each year, a disproportionate number of whom are from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds.

"There is now an overwhelming view shared by the higher courts and MPs that the government should act immediately to ensure no child who is given a caution ends up with a criminal record that stigmatises them for life."

Shoplifting and 'dares'

One of the cases involved a woman, referred to in court as P, who was charged with shoplifting a 99p book in 1999 while suffering from untreated schizophrenia.

She was bailed to appear before magistrates 18 days later, but failed to attend court, which meant she ended up with two convictions - for which she received a conditional discharge.

P wants to work as a teaching assistant, having previous experience of teaching, and has sought voluntary positions in schools. However, with each application she is required to disclose her historic convictions, which has the effect of leading to the disclosure of her medical history to explain them.

In another case, G was arrested at the age of 13 for sexually assaulting two younger boys, with offences involving sexual touching and attempted intercourse.

Police records indicated the sexual activity was consensual and carried out as "dares", in the form of sexual curiosity and experimentation on the part of all three boys.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute. G received a police reprimand in Sept 2006 and has not offended since.

In 2011, when working as a library assistant in a local college, he was required to apply for an enhanced criminal records check because his work involved contact with children.

The police proposed to disclose the reprimand with an account of the mitigation. As a result, G withdrew his application and lost the job. He has since felt unable to apply for any job requiring an enhanced criminal records check.

Their cases were heard alongside that of W, a man who - more than 35 years ago - was convicted aged 16 of actual bodily harm, and given a two-year conditional discharge.

Due to the categorisation of this type of offence, under the current rules the record will never come off his standard or enhanced DBS check. However, the justices allowed the government's appeal regarding W. Those involved cannot be named for legal reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group