Posted on the 21st January 2026 in PHTM News

NO SECOND CHANCES: STOCKTON CABBIE DENIED LICENCE OVER CCTV CHAIN BRAWL

A veteran taxi driver has been stripped of his livelihood after councillors viewed "concerning" CCTV footage of him swinging a chain during a violent street disturbance, despite police dropping criminal charges.

The driver, who served the borough for 16 years without a criminal record, applied for a new private hire licence after his previous one was revoked in August 2024. However, Stockton Council’s licensing committee unanimously refused the application, concluding he was no longer a "fit and proper person" to transport the public.

The committee heard that Cleveland Police had previously arrested the motorist on suspicion of "causing GBH with intent and affray." While police ultimately took no further action due to "evidential limitations," the disclosure of the incident triggered a review of the driver's conduct.

Representing the driver, Simon Walker argued his client was a man of good character who had "transported tens of thousands of passengers" safely. Mr. Walker maintained the driver "was trying to peacefully break up an incident, however was attacked and then acted in self-defence."

He further described the driver as: "Honest, sober, courteous, mentally and physically fit... all of which should confirm to the committee that he was a fit and proper person."

The turning point for the committee was CCTV footage of the affray. While Mr. Walker disputed claims that his client hit anyone with the plastic chain, councillors were unconvinced by the "peacekeeper" narrative.

Minutes from the meeting noted that the driver "moved towards the violence and took an active part, arming himself with a chain." The committee found: there was "no evidence of peacekeeping"; 

the driver was "intentionally swinging the chain towards a younger male"; he was "disingenuous during interview," claiming he could not remember the chain despite the footage.

The committee ultimately ruled they were "not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle" with the driver, citing a lack of "insight into his behaviour."

In a contrasting session, the committee showed mercy to two other drivers who failed to declare convictions, putting the omissions down to genuine error rather than malice.

One driver received a warning after failing to disclose a conviction for driving without insurance. He explained he was merely moving an MoT-failed car "two roads down" for a tow truck and "did not realise the vehicle would be related to his taxi."

A second driver was cautioned over a bankruptcy-related conviction involving a house sale to his brother. He told the committee he "did not realise he had done anything wrong" until receiving a DBS letter.

In both instances, the committee opted for written warnings, satisfied that these were honest mistakes.


Read another story