Stockton man denied private hire licence over fatal crash conviction

Stockton man denied private hire licence over fatal crash conviction

A businessman from Stockton-on-Tees who previously served four years in prison for causing death by dangerous driving has been refused a private hire driver’s licence by Stockton Borough Council.

The applicant, whose identity has not been disclosed, applied for the licence despite a serious criminal conviction stemming from a head-on collision in 2013 which killed another motorist. He was convicted by a jury in 2015 and has since served his custodial sentence.

Council minutes reveal that the man “now accepted that the collision was his fault,” although he still appeared to challenge some aspects of the incident — notably, the allegation that he had been overtaking at the time of the crash. He told the licensing committee: “It was not an intentional collision,” and added that he believed he would not have gone to prison had the victim survived.

The applicant stated he had completed several rehabilitation courses in prison and had “learned to accept responsibility.” He regained his full driving licence in April 2019 after passing an extended retest.

Appearing before the council’s General Licensing Committee, the man said he was seeking a new start in private hire work to support his wife and two children, describing himself as a “confident driver” who is “fit and healthy.” He also cited the difficulty of returning to his previous retail sales career.

However, the committee unanimously rejected the application, stating they did not consider him to be a “fit and proper person” to hold a private hire licence. They emphasised there were no “exceptional circumstances” that would justify departing from their licensing policy, which ordinarily disqualifies applicants with convictions for causing death by dangerous driving.

In the same meeting, two other applicants were granted private hire licences. One had a past conviction for driving with drugs above the legal limit but was found to have “come across well” and “taken steps to address his issues.” The other had previously driven without insurance, but the committee accepted his explanation that it had been a “genuine mistake.”

Thanks for visiting DM News! If you’ve got a question, story, or anything you’d like to say, head over to DriverMatty.com — I’d love to hear from you! And while you’re there, don’t forget to check out my other websites and social media channels.