Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council's General Licensing Committee revoked combined hackney carriage and private hire driver 140597's licence on Tuesday 9 June 2026. The hearing was at 1.00pm in the Council Chamber at Dunedin House, Columbia Drive, Thornaby, and the public was excluded. He had held the licence since August 2022. The licensing file had no earlier complaints. Committee minutes
Cleveland Police's licensing team reported him in January 2026. The report concerned a police incident he had involved himself in: the arrest of an intoxicated woman in connection with an alleged knife-point robbery. Members were asked whether, on the balance of probabilities, he remained a fit and proper person.
What the council CCTV showed
Stockton Council public-space CCTV showed a woman resisting arrest and two officers struggling to place her in the rear of a police vehicle. Three police vehicles were present.
His licensed vehicle arrived and parked directly behind them. He appeared to start filming on his phone as he got out, and he kept filming the officers and the woman. The footage then showed what appeared to be an animated exchange with an officer.
After the vehicle carrying the woman left, he moved his taxi forward into the space, got out again with his phone, and appeared to knock on the window of the police vehicle an officer was sitting in. He appeared to record that exchange, then moved the phone around to record the surroundings, appearing very annoyed.
The officer tried to drive away. The driver stepped in front of the vehicle and obstructed its path, appearing to shout and point while still filming. As the vehicle moved he walked beside it. It stopped, he approached, and he put his hand into the police vehicle. He walked away. The officer parked behind the taxi, got out, and the two had a firm conversation. The driver's hands were in the air in what appeared to be an apologetic manner. He got into his vehicle with his phone in his left hand and drove off.
The arrest on Redhill Road
Sergeant Smith of Cleveland Police gave evidence. On his account there had been a knife-point robbery in Hardwick, Stockton-on-Tees. Two male suspects had been detained and one woman was still outstanding. He and two officers went to an address on Redhill Road. The woman was incredibly intoxicated, and her trousers were coming down as she struggled while officers tried to detain her. She was not being hurt. In his view she did not want to be detained because she was involved in the knife-point robbery.
A taxi pulled up and parked very close to the rear of the police vehicle where officers were struggling with her. When Smith realised the driver was filming, he tried to stand between them to protect her dignity, which the committee noted was apparent on the CCTV. Recording in a public place was permissible. He still questioned the appropriateness of filming a woman in that state: she was vulnerable because she was intoxicated, her trousers had fallen down, and she was distressed. He was not offended by the filming itself. He did not think someone in the driver's position should be recording a vulnerable woman.
The officer's written account was that the driver had obstructed him from leaving and had called him obscene names. At the hearing Smith confirmed that the driver had used inappropriate language towards him. Smith could have arrested him for obstruction, but he had to return quickly to custody to deal with the woman. In Smith's view the driver was interfering with law and order. In eighteen years as a police officer, this was not usual behaviour for a taxi driver. Smith had no body-worn video of the incident.
The driver's account
The driver attended with his representative, Jaz Siddique of Skys Legal NE. Siddique asked for the hearing to be put off until Cleveland Police had finished dealing with the driver's complaint against the officer, on the view that the outcome might change the weight given to the officer's evidence. The committee refused. The licensing investigation had begun in January 2026 and was still unresolved, despite extensive correspondence. Members were assessing the driver's conduct and whether he was fit and proper, not the conduct of a police officer.
In that complaint the driver set out his version: he started recording because he was concerned by what he was seeing; he did not obstruct or interfere with the officers; he did not drive while using his phone; he lightly tapped the window to get the officer's attention; and he denied swearing.
He brought a 21-second clip, recovered from an iTunes account. Asked why he had only a short snippet of what was put to him as a nine-minute incident, he explained that he had panicked and deleted the video, and that this was all he could retrieve. He had earlier given officers a different account, that the recording was on another phone which had been lost. Asked to clarify, he confirmed he had deleted the footage and that his daughter had then lost the telephone. He apologised for an error of judgement, accepted it was not the right footage to take, and confirmed it had not been shared.
The woman was screaming and shouting, and he felt compelled to record it because he has a daughter, a wife and sisters. He did not dispute becoming annoyed. He recalled only two interactions with PCSO Howe and questioned why he had not been arrested if his behaviour was so poor. He described himself as community-spirited rather than a nuisance.
Siddique called the conduct a blip at most, a low-level, minor issue. The driver had been on his way to collect pots and pans for his food business when, in his opinion, he saw the woman being manhandled. He did not know her, or why she was being arrested. Siddique argued he should not be penalised for recording. The conduct was not a criminal offence, his driving record was impeccable, and he had no sobriety, mental or physical issues. He had been a taxi driver for many years. Five character references were put in. The licence was his livelihood, and he had to provide for his daughter. Siddique asked the committee not to suspend or revoke, and to consider a condition barring unacceptable behaviour for six or twelve months.
Siddique had advised him not to attend a formal interview. Written answers were, in that view, enough, and an interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was unnecessary. Licensing officers had treated attendance as a reasonable requirement of the council's Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing Policy 2021-2026, and had treated the question as the broader fit and proper test rather than the absence of a crime. Correspondence ran to more than 25 emails. Allegations of bias, procedural unfairness and inappropriate conduct by licensing officers were taken through the council's complaints process. The outcome was that there was no case to answer. The way the driver had been dealt with was no different from any other driver, and the correct procedures had been followed.
Earlier encounters
PCSO Howe could not attend. His statement was read to the committee. It described the driver repeatedly involving himself in incidents that did not concern him, and behaving aggressively or in a manner intended to challenge or disrupt police activity. In Howe's view that fell below the standard expected of a licensed taxi driver in a public-facing role. The statement set out these earlier encounters.
About three months before the statement, the driver was parked on zigzag markings outside the Coral betting shop on Stockton High Street. Found inside, he claimed he had dropped off an elderly passenger. Challenged about the parking and about being inside the shop, his demeanour was described as aggressive.
About seven to eight months before, he stopped his taxi in the middle of Westbourne Street and prevented a marked police vehicle from passing. After being asked to move, he later pulled alongside officers and alleged he had recordings of a previous incident.
About a year before, while officers dealt with a traffic offence on Westbourne Street, he filmed them, causing a distraction and interfering with the safe handling of the situation.
About sixteen months before, officers issued him with a Section 59 warning for antisocial driving linked to inappropriate horn use while he was delivering food. During that encounter he and his brother behaved aggressively, made derogatory comments, and filmed officers at close range. He followed them to their vehicle, kept recording, and made repeated accusations. Councillors later reported that he had approached them about the incident.
About two years before, a parking enforcement officer asked for police help because the driver was acting aggressively over parking on Westbourne Street. Howe intervened to calm the situation.
The revocation
The committee was not satisfied that its members would allow people they care about to get into a vehicle alone with him, because of doubts arising from his conduct during the police incident. The footage, compounded by a pattern of concerning behaviour, was reasonable cause to revoke the licence. The committee resolved that driver 140597's combined hackney carriage and private hire licence be revoked.