The DTC refused the bid, stating that a future bid may be accepted if Director Desmond Marsh could prove he had moved on positively from his previous conviction
A company, one of whose directors Desmond Marsh was given a 40-month prison sentence in June 2012 at Leicester Crown Court after pleading guilty to false imprisonment, has lost its bid for a new PSV O-Licence.
Viking Tyre Centre, of Woodville, Swadlincote, had sought a new one-vehicle national licence before Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Simon Evans.
Asked why he wanted to run buses after the DTC had said the conviction raised concerns over his suitability and repute, Mr Marsh said that after the conviction he started the tyre company with his wife to better himself and they had decided they wanted another sideline with something different. The intention was to run airport services and private hire for stag nights and hen parties.
Questioned about the circumstances surrounding the conviction, Mr Marsh said that a friend had rang him on a Sunday asking could he spare half an hour. He arrived at the garage and went in and saw the victim on the floor who had been badly beaten. His friend and the victim’s father and uncle were there.
He turned and walked out but was told they needed his van to move the victim. He said he would take the victim somewhere where he could be found. They put him in a concrete sack and he took him and left him in a pub doorway. He basically moved him to save him, and then went home. A charge of grievous bodily harm and wounding with intent was dropped after the victim had said that he had not been involved in the beating.
The DTC said that the victim had been in a dreadful state and was virtually at death’s door. Mr Marsh was guilty of an appalling lack of judgement. He had not just been caught up in something bad as he had become involved.
Mr Marsh said that he knew how to maintain vehicles and run a business. Six to seven months after they started the business they won an award. What occurred was well known in the local community.
Refusing the application, the DTC said that the conviction was a significantly serious matter, which caused him to have major concerns about the personal judgement of Mr Marsh, then and in the future.
He had taken into account the period of time that had passed since the sentence was imposed, during which Mr Marsh had not come to adverse attention. However, he could not yet conclude that the company had the requisite repute to hold a licence. He felt that further time should pass.
He estimated that if a further application was made in 12-18 months’ time, during which the company were able to continue to demonstrate in conjunction with Mr Marsh that it had moved on positively from those matters that blighted his personal repute, there had been no further matters of concern, and there had been further reflection on how he had come to make such poor decisions, such an application might then be viewed differently.
