A Stockton-on-Tees licensed private hire driver has had his licence revoked following an incident in which he filmed police officers arresting a woman suspected of an alleged knifepoint robbery.

However, the decision was not based simply on filming the police, but on the driver's conduct during the incident and allegations of previous confrontations with officers.

According to licensing committee minutes, CCTV showed the driver arriving at the scene, getting out of his vehicle and filming officers as they struggled to detain an intoxicated woman.

A police officer said he attempted to protect the woman's dignity by standing between her and the driver.

The situation reportedly escalated into a heated exchange, with allegations that the driver shouted at officers, obstructed a police vehicle and behaved aggressively.

In a complaint to Cleveland Police, the driver said he began recording because he was concerned about what he was witnessing.

He maintained that he had not obstructed or interfered with officers carrying out their duties, had not used his phone while driving and had only lightly tapped on a police vehicle window to attract an officer's attention. He also denied swearing at the officer.

The driver said the phone used to make the original recording had been lost, but he had recovered a 21-second video clip which was shown to the licensing committee.

He told councillors that the woman had been screaming and shouting and that he "felt compelled to record this as he has a daughter, a wife and sisters".

He apologised for his actions and acknowledged errors of judgement, saying the footage had not been shared publicly and that he had deleted it in a panic.

His representative described the incident as a minor lapse, arguing that the driver's conduct was not criminal, that his driving record was impeccable and that he should not be penalised for recording police activity.

The committee also heard that he had provided character references and had family responsibilities.

Following the incident, licensing officers and the driver's representative engaged in extensive correspondence, exchanging more than 25 emails.

This included allegations made to Stockton Council of bias, procedural unfairness and inappropriate conduct by licensing officers.

Councillors were told that the outcome of these complaints was that there was "no case to answer".

The licensing committee hearing was held behind closed doors, without members of the public present.

A police community support officer submitted evidence alleging that the driver had been involved in several previous incidents over the preceding two years, including confrontations with officers and behaviour said to have interfered with police activity.

These reportedly included obstructing a police vehicle, filming officers dealing with a traffic incident and challenging officers following a warning concerning inappropriate horn use.

After considering the evidence, Stockton Council's licensing committee concluded that the driver's conduct, together with what it regarded as a pattern of concerning behaviour, raised sufficient doubts about his suitability to hold a licence.

Members said they would not be comfortable allowing someone they cared about to travel alone with him.

His licence was therefore revoked.

Members of the public are generally permitted to film police officers carrying out their duties in public, provided they do not unlawfully obstruct or interfere with those duties.

This case raises a wider question about the standards of conduct expected of licensed private hire drivers, including when they are not carrying passengers.

While licensing authorities have a responsibility to protect the public, decisions must also be fair and proportionate.

• Share on Facebook
• Share to X