grandad wrote:
Sussex wrote:
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 quashing a previous conviction mean that the person is not guilty or that the verdict is as it says unsafe?
A person found not guilty will always be not guilty and the burden of proof needed for a guilty plea is a high one.
In the case above (I think), the person was found not guilty on the criminal charge, but found not 'fit and proper' on the balance of probabilities level of proof.
I also read somewhere, when doing Charlie's job for him, that hearsay evidence can be used when assessing the 'fit and proper' level, but is only used in exceptional circumstances in the criminal level.
Login
Register
FAQ
