[gondola]

Dear All,
I note with astonishment the decision of the Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing Judicial Committee to reinstate the licence of the ghastly Mr Altaf, a man convicted November last of sexually touching a passenger. This aspect of the issue has been widely reported in the press and thus there exists no need to elucidate further here.
An issue that does merit further discussion however, is the rationale behind the clearly flawed decision. Whilst every case is dealt on it’s merits, there are strict guidelines that need to be enforced to ensure that members of the public are afforded appropriate protection from those that represent a risk to them. The Judicial Committee is comprised of individuals that have been elected to serve the needs of the residents of Hyndburn whom they represent. There has to be a sense of accountability, and the interests of the members of the public ought to be at the forefront of their minds when adjudicating on such matters.
It is disturbing to note that had it not been for a ‘mole’ or some such, coupled with the efforts of Councillor Pritchard, then this matter would not have permeated into the public domain. The extent and severity of public reaction has led to the matter being reviewed, bit it still does not remotely alter the fact that those put in a position of responsibility to adjudicate on such important matters need to account for the basis of their decision. Whilst the decision of the Council to review systems and regulations to prevent such an egregious error going forward has to be welcomed, it does nothing to address whether or not systematic guidelines were followed in the first place. Surely, mitigating factors submitted by the applicant would not have been sufficient to offset his ghastly crime. If mitigation was sufficiently robust, then surely the decision would not have subsequently been altered. This reaffirms the view that it is not so much the alteration of regulations that ought to be the main thrust going forward, more the fact that such regulations need to be implemented in a sacrosanct manner .
This raises the issue of how many previous such cases may have been granted disproportionate leniency. Councillor Britcliffe proposes the setting up of a Cabinet Action Group or some such. Would such a group review previous cases dealt by the same adjudicating members to ensure that we do not have other similarly convicted drivers posing a potential and current threat to members of the public?
It is noteworthy that at the meeting on the 19th of February, the committee dealt with several other cases in addition to that of Mr Altaf. More importantly, they considered it appropriate to revoke the licence of at least one applicant. In order to establish a basis for comparative evaluation, I think it imperative that the details of the application revoked be disclosed to those responsible for investigation. Only by so doing, can the possibility of preferential bias be excluded.
For the benefit of readers , I attach below a link of the meeting of the 19th of February, including details of Committee members:
http://ww2.hyndburnbc.gov.uk/your_council/corporate_services/Member_Services/docs/doc1724_20070309_jud_report.pdf
Separately, I am in the process of referring to the Standards Board, matters pertaining to the conduct of Councillor A. Dad, Chair of the Judicial Committee. It is well known that Mr Dad earns of significant income from working, almost invariably every weekend, as a cameraman /photographer at Asian weddings. I think it needs to be established, what proportion , if any, of this income is actually disclosed.
Moreover, in relation to the decision to restore Mr Altaf’s licence it is ironic to note that Mr Dad is a member of, inter alia, the Community Safety and Wellbeing Committee. You simply could not make it up.