5
Under reference to item 3 of the Minute of the meeting of this Board held on 28 March 2019 consideration was resumed of applications (a), (b) and (c) for grant of Private Hire Car Drivers’ Licences and there were submitted applications (d), (e), (f) and (g) for grant of Private Hire Car Drivers’ Licences. Applicants (a), (b) and (c) had been asked to appear personally for the second time and applicants (d), (e), (f) and (g) had been asked to appear personally for the first time together with Police Scotland who had submitted an objection and further letter of objection to application (a); an objection to application (b) which was received outwith the statutory timescale; an objection to application (c); representations to applications (d), (e) and (f); and an objection to application (g):-
(a) Barry Purawec
Mr Purawec, the applicant, was invited into the meeting together with Inspector Glass, on behalf of the Chief Constable who had submitted an objection and further letter of objection to the application.
The Senior Solicitor (Litigation & Regulatory Services) advised that the objection and further letter of objection from Police Scotland was in the form of two letters, one of which had not been circulated to members of the Board as it contained details of matters which were now spent. Mr Purawec agreed that the Board should consider the matters contained in the second letter of objection.
After consideration of the age, nature and seriousness of the matters contained in the second letter of objection, the Convener proposed that the Board consider these matters as the interests of justice so required. This was agreed unanimously.
After consideration of all matters before the Board, the Board adjourned to allow members to consider this application. The meeting was reconvened and the Convener proposed that the application be refused. This was agreed unanimously.
DECIDED: That the application be refused.
Sederunt
Councillors Devine and Montgomery returned to the meeting.
(b) Danish Zafar
There was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Zafar. Inspector Glass, on behalf of the Chief Constable who had submitted an objection to the application which was received outwith the statutory timescale, was invited into the meeting. The Convener proposed that the application be considered in Mr Zafar’s absence and this was agreed unanimously.
On hearing the reasons for the lateness of the objection, the Convener proposed that the late objection be taken into account when the application was being considered. This was agreed unanimously. After consideration of all matters before the Board, the Convener proposed that the application be refused. This was agreed unanimously.
DECIDED: That the application be refused.
(c) Peter Ritchie
There was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Ritchie. Inspector Glass, on behalf of the Chief Constable who had submitted an objection to the application, was invited into the meeting. The Convener proposed that the application be considered in Mr Ritchie’s absence and this was agreed unanimously. After consideration of all matters before the Board, the Convener proposed that the application be refused. This was agreed unanimously.
DECIDED: That the application be refused.
(d) Mohammad Dahdal
There was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Dahdal. Inspector Glass, on behalf of the Chief Constable who had submitted a representation to the application, was invited into the meeting. The Convener proposed that consideration of the application be continued and that Mr Dahdal be invited to a future meeting of the Board. This was agreed unanimously.
DECIDED: That consideration of the application be continued and that the applicant be invited to a future meeting of the Board.
(e) James Murphy
There was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Murphy. Inspector Glass, on behalf of the Chief Constable who had submitted a representation to the application, was invited into the meeting. The Convener proposed that consideration of the application be continued and that Mr Murphy be invited to a future meeting of the Board. This was agreed unanimously.
DECIDED: That consideration of the application be continued and that the applicant be invited to a future meeting of the Board.
(f) Kulwant Lally
Mr Lally, the applicant, and his representative, Mr Thorburn, were invited into the meeting together with Inspector Glass, on behalf of the Chief Constable who had submitted a representation to the application. After consideration of all matters before the Board, the Board adjourned to allow members to consider this application. The meeting was reconvened and the Convener proposed that the application be granted for the duration of Mr Lally’s current Taxi Driver’s Licence. This was agreed unanimously.
DECIDED: That the application be granted for the duration of Mr Lally’s current Taxi Driver’s Licence.
(g) Thomas Baxter
There was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Baxter. Inspector Glass, on behalf of the Chief Constable who had submitted an objection to the application, was invited into the meeting. The Convener proposed that the application be considered in Mr Baxter’s absence and this was agreed unanimously. After consideration of all matters before the Board, the Convener proposed that the application be refused. This was agreed unanimously.
DECIDED: That the application be refused.