.jpg)
Bristol taxi licence action dropped after questions emerge over evidence in alleged child collision case
- Perry Richardson
- 4 hours ago
- 2 min read
A licensing case involving a Bristol hackney carriage driver and an alleged collision with a child will not return to committee after concerns were raised about the handling of witness evidence.
Bristol City Council’s Public Safety and Protection Sub-Committee considered whether action should be taken against the driver, identified in published minutes as MY, at a meeting on 7 July 2026.
The proceedings concerned both MY’s Hackney Carriage Driver licence and Hackney Carriage Vehicle licence. The driver attended with a legal representative and an interpreter.
The father and mother of the child who was allegedly struck by the vehicle were also present. Committee members viewed CCTV footage of the incident, but the minutes state that it was not possible to determine from the recording whether MY’s vehicle had collided with the child.
The child’s mother told the hearing that her son had been hit by the vehicle, had panicked and was not sleeping well afterwards. However, she had not witnessed the incident and answered questions on behalf of her husband because his English was limited.
The father had witnessed the incident and submitted a written statement.
According to the minutes, the wording of that statement suggested a good command of English, meaning the council had not been aware that he might require language assistance.
The statement had been submitted by email and council officers had not met the father face to face before the hearing. No interpreter was provided for him, and he had not requested one.
Committee members concluded that an interpreter should have been arranged so the father could answer questions about the alleged incident directly. The council said it had not provided one because it had not known about his limited English.
The case was initially adjourned until the committee’s meeting scheduled for 15 September 2026 to allow those issues to be addressed.
However, a subsequent note included in the published minutes states that it was later decided the case would not be brought back before the committee.
