Fair Procedures in SPSV Licensing: Considering Acquitted Allegations and Ensuring Material Disclosure

Introduction

This commentary examines the High Court of Ireland’s decision in PK v VS & Anor [2025] IEHC 244, delivered by Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan on 28 April 2025. The case arose from an application by P.K. ("the Applicant") to quash the refusal of his application for a Small Public Service Vehicle (taxi) licence under the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 (“2013 Act”). The central issues were:

Whether the Licensing Authority was entitled to rely on a past criminal allegation of sexual assault—despite the Applicant’s subsequent acquittal—in assessing his suitability to hold a taxi licence;
Whether the failure to disclose the precise material relied upon by the Licensing Authority breached the requirements of constitutional justice.

The First Named Respondent, a Garda Superintendent acting as Licensing Authority, had refused to grant the licence on the basis of concerns stemming from the 2017 allegation, even though the Applicant’s conviction was quashed on appeal and he was later acquitted by unanimous jury verdict.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held:

It is lawful under section 10 of the 2013 Act for a Licensing Authority to consider criminal complaints—even where the applicant was acquitted—in assessing whether an applicant is a “suitable person” to hold a licence.
However, principles of fair procedures require that an applicant be informed of the material on which adverse findings or concerns are based, so as to enable a proper response.
In this case, the Licensing Authority failed adequately to specify or disclose the material relied upon (save for explaining he had only “one side of the events”), thereby denying the Applicant a fair opportunity to address the concerns.
The refusal of 7 November 2023 was quashed and remitted for reconsideration with appropriate notice of all material relied upon.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

MD Rahman v. Healy [2022] IEHC 206 – held that the suitability test under section 10 of the 2013 Act is broad, permitting the Licensing Authority to consider matters such as immigration status and findings of dishonesty, even if under appeal.
McKenna v. Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2023] IEHC 437 – confirmed the statutory duty on the Licensing Authority to ensure only persons of good character and suitability receive SPSV licences for public safety.
Burke v. Minister for Education and Skills [2022] IESC 1 – restated the Wednesbury unreasonableness test and proportionality as an independent ground for judicial review.
J & E Davy v. Financial Services Ombudsman [2008] IEHC 256 – underscored the obligation to disclose factual material that influences an administrative decision so that the affected party can respond.
Mallak v. Minister for Justice [2012] IESC 59 – defined natural and constitutional justice, including the duty to give fair notice and reasons.
Ingle v. O’Brien [1975] ILTR 7 – held that a deficiency in fair procedures at first instance cannot be cured by a fair hearing on appeal alone.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in two main strands:

Substantive Suitability Test:
- Section 10(1) of the 2013 Act mandates that a licence “shall not” be granted unless the authority is satisfied as to the applicant’s suitability.
- Section 10(2) lists matters the authority “may” have regard to, including good character and concerns raised by any member of An Garda Síochána. These headings are not exhaustive; the statutory scheme contemplates broader inquiries necessary to safeguard public safety.
- The Court found it was within the Licensing Authority’s discretion to consider the fact that a sexual assault allegation had been made, even though it did not result in conviction, because it bore directly on the safety of vulnerable passengers.
Procedural Fairness and Disclosure:
- Even when the authority may consider particular matters, natural and constitutional justice require that the applicant be informed of the “material” on which concerns are based.
- The record of the 25 September interview showed the Licensing Authority merely stated he had “one side of the events” without specifying the documents or statements informing his concern.
- Absent clear notice of the precise statements or memoranda considered, the Applicant had no real opportunity to submit his own evidence (e.g. his sworn trial testimony or the Court of Appeal’s reasoning) to meet the concern.
- This procedural defect rendered the refusal decision legally unsafe and unfair.

3. Impact on Future Cases and Law

The judgment crystallizes two key principles for all SPSV licensing decisions:

Allegations—even post-acquittal—can form part of the suitability assessment, provided they remain genuinely relevant to public and passenger safety.
Licensing authorities must observe fair procedures by identifying and disclosing the exact material underpinning adverse concerns, so applicants can effectively respond or furnish counter-evidence.

Licensing authorities across regulated sectors should review their protocols to ensure transparency and fairness, especially where non-conviction information is at issue. The decision may also influence other areas where statutory licensing or vetting accommodates but does not end at acquittal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Wednesbury Unreasonableness” – This is an administrative law principle that a decision must not be so irrational it defies logic or accepted moral standards.
“Natural and Constitutional Justice” – These are core fairness obligations requiring notice of allegations or evidence, a right to be heard, and transparent reasons for decisions affecting rights or interests.
“Balance of Probabilities” vs. “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” – Civil or administrative decisions often apply the lower “balance of probabilities” standard (more likely than not), whereas criminal guilt must be proven “beyond reasonable doubt.” An acquittal on the higher standard does not automatically preclude concern on the lower standard.
“Alternative Remedy” – The statutory right of appeal to the District Court is available, but it cannot cure fundamental procedural unfairness at first instance. Both levels of decision–making must be fair in substance and procedure.

Conclusion

The High Court in PK v VS & Anor reaffirmed the broad discretionary scope of a Licensing Authority under the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 to consider allegations—even after acquittal—when assessing an applicant’s suitability to carry vulnerable passengers. However, the Authority’s power is subject to constitutional safeguards requiring transparent disclosure of the precise material on which adverse concerns are based. Absent such disclosure, an applicant cannot effectively respond, and the decision may be quashed for breach of fair procedures. The case clarifies both substantive and procedural benchmarks for taxi-licensing and analogous regulatory regimes.