Agenda item

The Committee considered the report, and at the hearing viewed the recording of the incident provided by Surrey Police Officer and the driver.

The driver had been provided with a copy of the recording in advance of the hearing which he had collected from the Council offices, and which was shown to the Committee at the start of the hearing.

The Committee felt that the recording from the unmarked Police vehicle showed that he was travelling at speed in excess of the legal limit, and the Officer’s evidence was accepted in that it could not be determined exactly what speed his vehicle was travelling at.

The Committee noted that the Officer present had 21 years of service in policing and when questioned, explained that speedometers are generally thought to have a 10 % degree of accuracy. The Officer also provided calculations for the equivalent speeds in miles per hour (from that in kilometres per hour which was shown on the recording).

The Committee noted the driver’s explanation to the Officer and to the Committee was that he had no intention to travel at excess speed and was surprised that he had been stopped by the Officer. During the Committee hearing he reiterated his belief that he had been travelling at only 70 miles per hour and suggested that his car would not be able to travel at speeds alleged by the Officer, as there were mechanical issues, and he had been delayed in his attendance by vehicle problems. The driver also indicated that he determines the speed in which he is travelling by looking at road signs, and making use of the cruise control – and was adamant when questioned that he was only travelling at 70 miles per hour on the relevant date.

It was noted from the evidence of the Officer that he did not have a passenger in the vehicle at the time and when spoken to by the Officer, and within the police statement at the time of the incident he cooperated fully and appeared to express remorse for his actions, which clearly conflicted with the evidence which he provided to the Committee.

The Committee took account of the fact that the driver had no complaints recorded against him in so far as the Licensing service is aware, but was very concerned, as was the evidence of the Police Officer, that he did not recognise that he was travelling at significant speed, in the region of 100 miles per hour.

In addition, the Licensing Officer confirmed that he had a clean DVLA driving licence with no penalty points recorded, and this appeared to be an isolated incident.

The Committee felt that the Police Officer was a credible witness and took account of their extensive professional experience and this together with the recording from the Police vehicle made it very clear to the Committee that The driver was travelling at excess speed and estimated at in the region of 100 miles per hour in an area where 70 miles per hour was the legal limit, which was of great concern. In line with Waverley’s statement of policy, the Committee noted that the driver had initially accepted responsibility but stated when questioned, and at the hearing that he did not believe that he was travelling outside the speed limit. As a result, the Committee felt that he had not been taking his professional responsibility as a licensed driver seriously, and represented a significant risk to other members of the travelling public which was an aggravating feature of the incident. 

The Committee felt that given the seriousness of the incident, it was appropriate to impose a three month suspension of his Waverley taxi licence as sanction, and determined that this should have immediate effect and was necessary in the interests of public safety.

This meant that he will not be able to drive a licensed vehicle for hire or reward until 9 December 2021. The Committee considered whether it may be possible to impose a lesser sanction, but in light of the clear evidence from the Police and his position, and the seriousness of the incident, the Committee felt that other sanctions would not be appropriate in the circumstances of the case and suspension was just and appropriate.

The Committee felt that suspension rather than revocation of his licence would be an appropriate sanction and necessary to protect the public – to ensure that a good safe and reliable service can be provided to the public by its licensed drivers. In addition, he was awarded 6 penalty points under the Waverley driving penalty point scheme, which will remain on his Waverley licence for a period of three years.

The driver immediately provided his Waverley taxi licence identification badge to the Licensing officer as soon as the decision was announced.