P.K. v V.S and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan
• Judgment Date: 28 April 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 244
• Docket Number: RECORD NO. 2024/163H JR

Between

P.K.

Applicant

and

V. S. and Commissioner of An Garda Siochana

Respondents

[2025] IEHC 244

RECORD NO. 2024/163H JR

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review – Taxi licence – Fair procedures – Applicant seeking to quash the decision to refuse his application for a taxi licence – Whether the decision was arrived at in breach of the requirements of constitutional justice

Facts: The applicant applied to the High Court seeking to quash the decision to refuse his application for a small public service vehicle licence on foot of his application under the Taxi Regulation Act 2013. As an Authorised Officer under the 2013 Act, the first respondent was designated as the Licensing Authority. The applicant contended that his application was unlawfully refused because regard was improperly had to a criminal allegation against him divorced from the outcome of the criminal proceedings, without any independent assessment of the allegation made against him and without affording him a proper opportunity to address materials being considered by the Licensing Authority. It was contended that refusing the application on the simple fact that an allegation was made was unreasonable and the decision was arrived at in breach of the requirements of constitutional justice.

Held by Phelan J that the applicant was entitled as a matter of constitutional fair procedures to know the material available to the Licensing Authority in relation to its concerns so that he could produce any additional, relevant material which may assist him in establishing his suitability for the issue of a taxi licence. As it could not be said with certainty that the applicant, equipped with knowledge in relation to the incomplete nature of the material available to the Licensing Authority, would not have engaged at least to the extent of referring the Licensing Authority both to the decision of the Court of Appeal and to the evidence he gave at trial which resulted in his acquittal, Phelan J was left with a level of concern about the fairness of the process sufficient to warrant quashing the decision to refuse the taxi licence and remitting it for fresh consideration, despite her misgivings as to the applicant’s conduct during the process and his misguided attitude to the Licensing Authority’s remit. Furthermore, it seemed to Phelan J that it was only when the applicant was properly appraised of the materials relied upon in the negative decision the better to understand why his application had been refused and how his case might be strengthened on a further hearing on the merits, that he had sufficient information to enable him to effectively exercise his right of appeal. Accordingly, Phelan J did not find that the applicant should be refused relief in the proceedings by reason of his failure to exhaust an alternative, appropriate remedy. Phelan J held that the applicant was entitled to both a fair process at first instance and on appeal and his rights on appeal required that he be properly on notice of the material relied upon in the decision-making process culminating in a refusal against which he wished to appeal.

Phelan J made an order of certiorari quashing the decision of 7 November 2023 to refuse a taxi licence to the applicant.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan, delivered on the 28 ^th day of April, 2025.

INTRODUCTION

1 . In these proceedings, the Applicant seeks to quash the decision to refuse his application for a small public service vehicle licence, more commonly referred to as a taxi licence, on foot of his application under the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 (hereinafter “the 2013 Act”). As an Authorised Officer under the 2013 Act, the First Named Respondent is designated as the Licensing Authority and is charged with a variety of functions including ensuring that taxi licences are only granted to suitable persons.

2 . The Applicant's application for a taxi licence was refused by the Licensing Authority due to concerns emanating from an allegation of sexual assault made against the Applicant, for which he was prosecuted, notwithstanding that the Applicant was ultimately found not guilty following a full jury trial.

BACKGROUND

3 . It is common case that the Applicant was convicted on one count of sexual assault alleged to have occurred on the evening of the 24 ^th of December, 2017. The Applicant denied all wrongdoing throughout the investigation and trial and gave evidence during his trial denying the allegation. Having been convicted of the offence, he appealed successfully, and his conviction was quashed. The circumstances leading to the quashing of his conviction are set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal (delivered on the 31 ^st of July, 2020, in the case of D.P.P. v. P.K. [2020] IECA 220). The Applicant was subsequently acquitted by a jury by unanimous verdict after a second trial on the 17 ^th of September, 2021.

4 . On the 14 ^th of January, 2023, the Applicant made an application to his regional Garda division for a taxi licence pursuant to the provisions of the 2013 Act. On his application form, he disclosed that he was working as a tour guide/driver for a named coach company and that he had historic convictions for public order and domestic violence offences (events occurring more than 15 years previously).

5 . On or about the 25 ^th of September, 2023, on invitation, the Applicant attended a meeting with the Licensing Authority at which his application was discussed. It was understood that the purpose of this interview was to assess the Applicant's suitability as a person to hold a taxi licence. At this meeting, the fact that the Applicant had been prosecuted on foot of an allegation of sexual assault was raised and the Applicant was advised by the decision-maker as follows:

“all I have is a one-sided version of events. Is there anything you can say to convince me that you are a proper person to hold a PSV licence.”

6 . The Applicant objected to being questioned in respect of the previous allegation telling the Licensing Authority that he had been through two trials and had been proved innocent, to which it is understood the decision-maker replied:

“ that's not quite the case.”

7 . The decision-maker in his capacity as Licensing Authority also stated with reference to the allegations:

“ I have to operate on the balance of probabilities with regards to the allegations…”

8 . It is clear from the record of the meeting that the Licensing Authority gave the Applicant an opportunity to discuss the circumstances surrounding the incident giving rise to the charge and acquittal and asked the Applicant to give his version of events. The difference between a “ not guilty” verdict and being proven innocent was also explained.

9 . By letter dated the 27 ^th of September, 2023, the Licensing Authority wrote to the Applicant in terms indicating that it was intended to consider refusing the Applicant a taxi licence. That letter, entitled “ Notice of intention to consider refusal to grant a licence…” stated:

“The Authorised Officer is not satisfied that you are a suitable person to hold a SPSV licence”.

10 . The reasons were stated to be as follows:

“Due to 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.”

11 . This letter allowed the Applicant a period of 14 days to make representations in respect of the intention to refuse. On foot of same, the Applicant's solicitor wrote to the Licensing Authority via email on the 5 ^th of October, 2023, requesting the notes from the meeting and stating, inter alia, as follows:

“The grounds cited by you are “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 in XX Garda Station”. You should be well aware that the conviction against my client was quashed by the Court of Appeal, yet you arrived at the decision you did, without mention of this despite my client advising you of his acquittal on a number of occasions. Your decision jeopardises my client's livelihood and character. I am therefore requesting that this decision is reviewed as a matter of urgency and set aside and my client deemed a suitable person as required by Taxi Regulation Act of 2013. My client is also seeking a retraction and an apology from you.”

12 . By letter dated the 11 ^th of October, 2023, the Licensing Authority replied enclosing the meeting notes, noting that the application was in fact still under consideration, stating as follows:

“….As the correspondence sent to your client reflects, the notice indicated an intention to consider refusal to grant a licence. As Chief Superintendent, I am still considering this application. My role as deciding officer in the consideration of applications for public service vehicle licences bears certain responsibilities, as set out in the Taxi Regulation Act 2013. The Chief Superintendent who is the Deciding Officer bears responsibility to the public at large in the issue of licences and as such, all matters that may be of relevance to the application must face careful scrutiny and deliberation. As previously referred to, this application is still under consideration. The promise of judicial review will not impact or influence the decision making process in this regard. In accordance with the Taxi Regulation Act and the obligations to the public at large, my decision will be reached independently and as fairly as possible.”

13 . The Licensing Authority allowed a further period of 10 days for submissions to be made in respect of the intention to refuse.

14 . By email dated the 23 ^rd of October, 2023, the Applicant's solicitor replied to the invitation to provide further submissions and referred to the grounds of refusal set out under s. 10 of the 2013 Act stating:

“None of the above...