High Court: Decision to refuse taxi licence to man prosecuted for sexual assault quashed

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 244
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan stated: “The level of concern remaining where an acquittal has occurred requires separate assessment in the context of a taxi licensing application. It is clear that a concern may arise warranting refusal of a taxi licence based on the evidence led at trial, notwithstanding that evidence sufficient to establish guilt on a criminal law standard of beyond reasonable doubt did not exist.”

Background

The applicant was convicted of one count of sexual assault alleged to have occurred in December 2017. On appeal, his conviction was quashed and after his second trial, he was acquitted by unanimous verdict of a jury on 17 September 2021.

On 14 January 2023, the applicant applied to his regional Garda division for a taxi licence pursuant to the Taxi Regulation Act 2013, disclosing that he was working as a tour guide/coach driver and had historic convictions for public order and domestic violence offences.

On 25 September 2023, the applicant attended a meeting with the licensing authority at which his suitability to hold a taxi licence was assessed. The decisionmaker raised the issue of the sexual assault prosecution and gave the applicant an opportunity to provide his version of events.

On 27 September 2023, the authority wrote the applicant notifying him of its intention to refuse the licence because of “concerns raised by the allegation of a criminal act against you by a third party as discussed in the meeting of the 25th of September at Bandon Garda Station”.

The letter allowed 14 days for the applicant to make representations. Notwithstanding the representations made on his behalf by his solicitor, the applicant was notified on 7 November 2023 that he was deemed unsuitable to hold a taxi licence and same was refused on the basis of the complaint of sexual assault made as against him.

The applicant declined to appeal to the District Court, instead obtaining leave to bring judicial review proceedings in March 2024.

In particular, the applicant contended that his application was unlawfully refused because regard was improperly had to a criminal allegation divorced from the outcome of the criminal proceedings, without any independent assessment of the allegation made and without affording the applicant a proper opportunity to address materials being considered by the authority.

The respondent pointed to the duty on the authority to refuse a licence unless satisfied as to the applicant’s suitability and asserted inter alia that the applicant had three opportunities to address the authority’s concerns but failed to properly engage with the process.

The High Court

The court set out the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act, and in particular s.10 thereof which permits the authority to have regard to factors such as an applicant’s good character, convictions and any concerns raised by the authority and/or by gardaí. 

Ms Justice Phelan noted that the preliminary issue to be determined was whether the applicant should have exhausted the alternative remedy of an appeal to the District Court.

The judge considered that the substantive issues were whether the fact that the applicant was subject to an allegation of sexual assault was a relevant consideration upon which the authority was entitled to rely in refusing a taxi licence, and if so, whether the decision-making process was flawed by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of constitutional justice in making the decision based on undisclosed materials.

Firstly addressing the substantive issues, Ms Justice Phelan was satisfied that the function of the authority was to ensure that public safety was not put at risk by the grant of a taxi licence and that the applicant’s contention that the authority took into account irrelevant matters was misconceived and fundamentally misunderstood the licensing function under the 2013 Act. 

The court explained that having regard to MD Rahman v. Healy [2022] IEHC 206, the authority was entitled to take into account matters which are unspecified in s.10 given the legislative intent in ensuring public safety, highlighting: “The fact alone that a serious complaint was made gives rise to a concern which requires to be considered when it gives rise to an issue of public safety and the safety of vulnerable persons.”

The court also considered the authority’s uncontroverted evidence that the applicant failed to address its concerns, with the authority contending that the applicant became aggressive and annoyed and refused to engage with its questioning.

Ms Justice Phelan recognised that the applicant’s “apparent aversion to further discussing the events leading to his prosecution, conviction and acquittal on a retrial, having served part of a custodial sentence, is understandable from a human perspective” but given that he was seeking to satisfy the authority of his suitability, he was required to properly engage and it was not open to him to expect that his refusal to revisit the complaint would not weigh against him in the decision.

Pointing out that the authority had no access to the applicant’s version of events as previously given during his criminal trial, the court held that the authority was entitled to conclude that it could not be satisfied as to the applicant’s suitability to drive vulnerable members of the public and that this decision was not unreasonable and irrational in the circumstances.

As to whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair, the court was satisfied that the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to address all materials considered by the authority and had not been put on notice of the materials which were before the authority contrary to constitutional fair procedures.

In particular, the court had to regard to the fact that the only documents exhibited by the authority in relation to the complaint of sexual assault were copy statements taken from the complainant and a copy of the December 2017 “memo of interview” taken as part of the criminal investigation, and that the authority had asked the applicant for his side of the story, indicating that it only possessed material from one side of the case. 

Pointing out that this situation could have been rectified had the applicant been notified of the material relied upon in the decision-making process, Ms Justice Phelan considered that the authority had fallen into error which gave rise to potential unfairness in the decision-making process.

The judge remarked: “I am far from blind to the fact that the biggest impediment to the applicant simply presenting his account again when asked by the licensing authority to give his account of what occurred was his own incorrect and misguided view that the complaint was no longer relevant because he had been acquitted.”

Nonetheless, the court concluded: “The failure to put the applicant on notice of the material available to the licensing authority, compounded by the failure to establish what material was before the licensing authority by solicitors acting on his behalf, meant that the applicant could not make a properly informed decision as to what additional information he could give the licensing authority to alleviate concerns arising.”

Finding the decision to be legally unsafe, the court further determined that in light of her findings of procedural frailty, the case fell within the scope of Ingle v O’Brien [1975] 109 ILTR 7 in that the applicant had established an entitlement to relief “not by reference to the merits of his underlying application but because of an identified procedural irregularity in the process culminating in that decision, which irregularity also impacted on the conduct of the appeal, its efficacy and timeliness”.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court made an order of certiorari quashing the decision of 7 November 2023 refusing the grant of a taxi licence to the applicant.

PK v VS and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2025] IEHC 244