Drug Dealing Taxi Operation Shut Down
Bradford Magistrates Court has refused an appeal against the revocation of a taxi operator’s licence after a member of staff was caught dealing drugs to undercover police officers.
In 2023 West Yorkshire Police conducted a multi-county operation to shut down gangs dealing and smuggling class A drugs. The operation utilised under-cover police officers, encompassed “county-lines” gang, and resulted in more than 50 arrests. To date there have been 27 convictions with prison sentences handed down totaling more than 60 years. Further prosecutions will continue throughout 2025.
As part of that operation, West Yorkshire Police raided A Taxis. The search unearthed CCTV footage showing the despatcher, on multiple occasions, appearing to sell cocaine from the office. A Taxis is operated by Mr Y, a relative of the despatcher in question. The police informed Bradford District Council (the licensing authority) and Mr Y’s operator’s licence was revoked on the basis that he was not a “fit and proper person” to hold the licence (per s62(1)(d) of the Local Government (Misc Provisions) Act 1976).
On appeal, Mr Y relied (in summary) on three key arguments:
- He was not aware of his relative’s drug dealing. It was sufficient that he had not broken the law himself, he should not be punished for another’s law breaking.
- He had recently been granted a renewed Private Hire Vehicle Licence, for which the Council had concluded he was a “fit and proper person”. He should, therefore, be considered “fit and proper” in respect of the operator’s licence; and
- He had a long history of operating taxi companies without error and was considered an upstanding member of the community.
The court, however, preferred the Council’s submissions:
- There had been unlawful activity – namely drug dealing – at the Premises. The test was the balance of probabilities, not “beyond reasonable doubt” (following McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council [1998] 3 All E.R. 889). The unchallenged evidence of a West Yorkshire Police Detective Sergeant was, therefore, sufficient to establish the fact.
- The Appellant had operational control, and a legal responsibility for the Premises and, regardless of whether he was personally involved in criminality, he failed to ensure the premises were used lawfully.
- The Appallant’s refusal to accept responsibility for that failure indicate he was not a “fit and proper person”.
- The test for whether an individual is “fit and proper” is context dependent. The statutory language (sections 47, 48, and 55 of the Local Government (Miscelaneous Provisions) Act 1976) explicitly links the “fit and proper” test to the specific purpose of the licence (operating a taxi firm/driving a provate hire vehicle/driving a Hackney Carriage). The question for the court was not “is the appellant a fit and proper person” but “is the appellant fit and proper to hold an operators licence”?
The Court also agreed that the Appellant’s admission (under cross examination), that his evidence in court differed on several important points from the evidence he had given when interviewed by licensing officers, reduced the weight that could be placed on his evidence.
The case demonstrates two important lessons for practitioners:
- An operators licence shouldn’t be considered in the same way as a driver’s licence. The operator has a suite of management responsibilities and a person who is “fit and proper” to be a driver may not be “fit and proper” to be an operator.
- Relatedly, when determining whether a person is “fit and proper” to be an operator, the decision-maker must consider their capabilities as a supervisor. The operator has positive duties to ensure proper conduct by their staff and drivers. Its not enough for them just to keep out of trouble.
Sam Fowles acted for the successful local authority.
Identifying data has been removed from this article to avoid influencing ongoing prosecutions.
