Uttlesford Councillors approve private hire driver’s licence concluding illegal shotgun possession offence posed little risk to public safety
- Perry Richardson
- 2 days ago
- 2 min read
A private hire driver’s licence applicant has been granted a licence despite holding a conviction for possession of a weapon that fell within Uttlesford District Council’s usual exclusion period. Councillors decided the circumstances of the offence justified a departure from policy.
The application came before the Licensing and Environmental Health Committee on 5 March 2026 because the applicant had a conviction for possession of a weapon that was less than seven years old. Under the council’s licensing policy, applicants with a conviction for possession of a weapon would normally not be granted a licence until at least seven years had elapsed since completion of any sentence imposed.
Explaining the circumstances behind the conviction, the applicant told councillors that police attended his property following a disturbance involving his son. During the visit, officers discovered a shotgun that had been stored in a wardrobe. The applicant said he owned the firearm to deal with foxes on his land and had been advised by a farmer that it could be used on private property without a licence. He admitted he had not realised a shotgun certificate was required.
The applicant told the panel he had only fired a single cartridge and never saw the fox again. He added that he had appeared before magistrates and received a fine rather than a custodial sentence.
During the hearing, the applicant outlined his plans to enter the taxi industry after a career in bricklaying. He explained that physical construction work had become more difficult with age and that private hire driving offered a less physically demanding career path. He said he enjoyed meeting people and had already spent time working in the office of the operator intending to employ him.
After considering the evidence, the licensing panel unanimously approved the application. Councillors noted that by July 2026 the conviction would fall outside the council’s seven-year policy threshold and that only a short period remained before that point was reached.
The panel also determined that the offence took place on private land and did not involve any risk to the wider public. Members highlighted that the applicant received a fine rather than a prison sentence, which they considered significant when assessing the seriousness of the matter.
Councillors further noted that the applicant had fully declared the conviction during the licensing process and had been open with both officers and the panel regarding the circumstances surrounding the offence, including providing a related newspaper article.
The panel acknowledged that the applicant also had a historic conviction for affray. However, members said the offence was well beyond the council’s 10-year policy threshold and therefore carried minimal weight in their deliberations.
Applying the standard licensing test of whether they would allow someone they care about to travel alone with the applicant, councillors unanimously concluded that they would. The licence was therefore granted.
