Taxi Driver Online

Glasgow private hire driver refused licence after assault conviction

https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glas ... d-25036950

Police Scotland objected to Lukasz Bonczar’s application to drive private hires, questioning whether he was a 'fit and proper person' to hold a licence.

A private hire driver who assaulted his ex-partner has been blocked from operating in the city.

Lukasz Bonczar’s bid to renew his licence was turned down by Glasgow’s licensing committee following an objection from Police Scotland.

Sergeant Lisa Campbell said the force believed Mr Bonczar is “not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

She told the committee he had been charged following allegations he had behaved in “a threatening or abusive manner” towards his ex-partner.

The officer said he had allegedly shouted, swore and smashed household items and assaulted his ex-partner by striking her on the head with his hands.

Sergeant Campbell added: “This has since been to court and on the December 9, 2021, at Glasgow and Strathkelvin court he has been convicted of both charges. The charges were slightly amended.”

She said he had been ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work and given a non-harassment order for two years.

Mr Bonczar was not present at the licensing hearing and, in his absence, the licensing committee decided to reject his application to renew his private hire car driver’s licence for three years.

Slightly odd the way his behaviour is portrayed in terms of 'allegations' and 'allegedly', as if he hasn't been convicted yet

But he was convicted, but as the article says, the charges were slightly amended.

So the cynic in me thinks Police Scotland cited the behaviour alleged rather than that he was charged and convicted of. Which, of course, is perfectly reasonable given that it's open to licensing committees to consider behaviour that hasn't resulted in a criminal conviction.

Perfectly reasonable, of course, if it's assumed members of the committee are fair-minded, unprejudiced and understand the standard of proof required blah, blah

I thought it said he was convicted ?

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

He was convicted.

The licensing police person hasn't got a f***ing clue what's she on about.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes, he was convicted.

But I'd guess Police Scotland are trying to say he did other stuff that wasn't part of what he was convicted of, or that what he did was a more serious crime than that he was convicted of.

Basically because it's a different legal forum, and a different standard of proof, and thus councillors might reasonably conclude that the driver did more serious stuff than he was actually convicted of.