Content

Applications for Review of two Premises Licences in respect
of

(i)         
Woolwich Snooker Club (formerly known as Hustlers
Snooker Club & Sports Bar), 1st Floor, 2-10 Hare Street,
Woolwich, SE18 6LZ, and

(ii)       
the Multi-Use Events Venue within Woolwich
Snooker Club, 1st Floor, 2-10 Hare Street, Woolwich, SE18
6LZ
 
 
FULL
DECISION
 
The Sub-Committee has
determined two applications for review of two existing Premises
Licences under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). Both
applications were made in respect of Woolwich Snooker Club
(formerly known as Hustlers Snooker Club & Sports Bar), 1st
Floor, 2-10 Hare Street, Woolwich, SE18 6LZ (“The
Premises”), which holds two licences for different areas of
the venue. The First Licence relates to the Woolwich Snooker Club
itself, and the designated premises supervisor is Mr Tacim Yavuz.
The First Licence was granted to Hustlers Snooker Club Ltd, of
which Mr Yavuz is the sole director, and which is the Premises
Licence Holder. The Second Licence relates to a Multi-Use Events
Venue in a different area within the same premises, and the
designated premises supervisor is Mr Bahattin Huseyin Dag while Mr
Yavuz is the Premises Licence Holder. 
Mr Dadds represented both Mr Yavuz and the company at the meeting
of the Licensing Sub-Committee. Mr Yavuz was not
present.
 
At the start of the hearing,
the Sub-Committee decided to hear the submissions on both
applications together since they related to the same Premises and
similar facts, had the same representatives, and there would be a
large amount of cross-over in submissions. The Sub-Committee were
mindful that the applications should be considered and determined
separately, each on their own merits.
 
The applications for review
were brought by PC Mindaugas Alsauskas for and on behalf of the
Metropolitan Police, a Responsible Authority pursuant to the
Licensing Act 2003. The applications are made on grounds relating
to the licensing objectives for the Prevention of Crime &
Disorder and Public Safety.
 
There were two representations
in support of the applications to review: those set out by PC
Alsauskas on behalf of the police relating to an incident on 2
February 2025 when Mr Yavuz can be seen punching a member of the
public who had been involved in a fight with a customer, and then
kicking another member of the public, following which the police
note breaches of the licence in not providing or being able to
provide copies of the CCTV to police (see further
below);  and from Ms Ishwak Ahmed on
behalf of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Public Health team who
submitted that public health supported the application for a review
in view of the CCTV of the incident and also due to the significant
sustained breaches of the current Licensing conditions, which are
conditions 4 and 7 of the Woolwich Snooker Club licence, and
conditions 2 and 5 of the Multi-Use Events Venue Licence and
provide as follows:
2/4. “A fully operational
CCTV system shall be provided throughout all public parts of the
premises. Recordings shall be kept for a period of at least
thirty-one (31) days and made available to Police and Council
officers on request.”
5/7. “Staff shall be
fully trained in the operation of the CCTV system and there shall
be at least one person on duty during trading hours who is able to
provide a recording of any incident at the request of the Police
and/or Licensing authority.”
 
The history of Mr Yavuz’s
supervision of the Premises in relation to the First Licence
(Woolwich Snooker Club) includes that on 2 April 2023 Officers from
the Community Protection (Noise) Team attended the premises and met
with Mr Yavuz after finding customers being admitted at the rear in
Creton Street, who were not snooker club members, in contravention
of the terms of the licence. On 29 April 2023 a report was received
from the supervisor of RBG’s CCTV Digital Evidence Team of a
gathering of 200-300 people to the rear of the premises on Creton
Street which resulted in frrequent nighttime visits by licensing
officers. No further incidents were recorded and those visits
ceased in August 2023.
 
On 14 June 2023 (again in
relation to the First Licence) PC Sam Bobb of Greenwich Police
Licensing had occasion to visit the premises to assist a police
colleague who had experienced difficulties in obtaining CCTV
footage from Mr Yavuz following an incident of assault occasioning
actual bodily harm at the premises in April 2023. PC Bobb was
concerned that multiple conditions of the licence had been
breached. On 26 June 2023, PC Bobb held a meeting with Mr Yavuz at
the premises to discuss the breaches, the outcome of which was
satisfactory.
 
The Sub-Committee heard the
report from the licensing officer Mr Cox and viewed the CCTV in
public. They then heard from Ms Bruce-Smith on behalf of the
police, who submitted that the police do not have confidence that
Mr Yavuz can uphold the licensing objectives given his conduct on 2
February 2025 when he can be seen to punch a member of the public
seemingly unprompted, and then kick another individual. This shows,
she argued, that he is not a responsible Premises Licence Holder or
Designated Premises Supervisor, and he escalated the situation
rather than deescalating it. The only reason the matter resulted in
no further action was the victim’s unwillingness to
cooperate. Further, he had no concern for the welfare of the man he
punched who was apparently unconscious, and this raises concerns
about his ability to uphold public safety. She added that although
these are two separate applications, Mr Yavuz is (effectively) the
premises licence holder in respect of both and therefore it is
justified to revoke both licences. She added finally that the
failure to supply CCTV was a breach of the conditions of the
licence which are there to enable effective investigation by
police, and was therefore a serious breach.
 
Councillor Cousins asked
whether the CCTV had ever been provided, which it had not. The
police were not able to confirm whether the CCTV from the 2023
incident had ever been provided.
 
Councillor Ayodele asked about
correspondence between the police and Mr Yavuz relating to the CCTV
of the 2 February 2025 incident and it was clarified that there was
a meeting and a request made, following which it was not
supplied.
 
Cllr McGahey asked about
whether the snooker club customers use the back door and go through
the multi-use events space to access the club even when it’s
not open, and the police said they were not aware one way or the
other. Mr Cox also could not confirm.
 
On behalf of public health Ms
Ahmed said that the licensing objectives were undermined by this
incident, they have substantial concerns and do not have confidence
in Mr Yavuz, and therefore, they support the police’s
application.
 
Mr Dadds submitted that the
police should not have accused the licence holder of a crime in
this meeting, and they inaccurately say that the male lies
motionless but that is not correct upon a careful viewing of the
footage. The letter from the Metropolitan Police says the matter
has been fully investigated and the decision to take no further
action was made, which shows there was no crime, yet this is
omitted from the public application. He further submitted that the
Premises Licence Holder called the police immediately, before he
was threatened by the individual and thought he was going to be
attacked, to which he reacted. Mr Dadds emphasised that the
principle of innocent until proven guilty is of critical
importance, and there are no findings of fact against Mr
Yavuz.
 
Mr Dadds explained that the
incident began because three individuals who weren’t members
of the Snooker club wanted to come in, but were asked to leave.
They then came in again with another customer and were asked to
leave again. A third time a customer came in and the group of three
tried to come in, which led to an altercation which caused the
Premises Licence Holder to come down. He called 999 once outside as
the fight continued. He was threatened with a knife and he reacted
in self-defence, which is what he told police. Officers saw the
CCTV from the entrance to the premises on the night, and they had
their body worn video on so must have recorded it. Licensing
officers attended later in the week and were also able to view it,
unfortunately it was not downloadable despite a substantial sum
spent to try to recover the CCTV: it was not deliberate evasion of
the licence terms which meant that the CCTV had not been provided
and instead Mr Yavuz did all he could to provide it.
 
On the Multi-Use Events Venue,
it was neither open nor operational on the day in question. Mr
Dadds also noted that none of the previous incidents in 2023
related to the use of that licence.
 
Looking forward, the Premises
now operates licensing connect to train its staff, and going
forward it has updated its CCTV capabilities so that staff can
download footage onto their phones. New CCTV cameras have also been
installed at the entry/exit points of the Premises.
 
 
Councillor Ayodele asked about
a receipt provided on behalf of Mr Yavuz which Mr Dadds said was
payment for the attempts by CMS electronics to recover the CCTV,
which was not possible. He also asked about the training now
provided to staff and Mr Dadds showed the Sub-Committee the
“licensing connect” licensing course and the
“WAVE” training on welfare and vulnerability which
staff now undertake.
 
Councillor McGahey asked the
police (i) whether the licence holder had called the police, (ii)
whether officers viewed the internal CCTV and whether they had
concerns about what they saw, and (iii) whether they still felt
after hearing the representations made that Mr Yavuz was not able
to uphold the licence. The police representative responded by
saying that the task was not to determine whether Mr Yavuz
committed an offence. Mr Yavuz did call 999 and another 999 call
was made by a friend of the victim, both were about the same time
around 00.35/00:36 and it was hard to tell whether these were
before or after the CCTV licensing officer contacted police.
Officers who attended the incident did not report concerns with the
CCTV but police remained concerned that it wasn’t provided on
request, and police continue not to have confidence in Mr
Yavuz.
 
Councillor Cousins asked Mr
Dadds about the sequence which led to Mr Yavuz punching a member of
the public. Mr Dadds then said that it was upon this
individual’s second attempt to enter the club when Mr Yavuz
attended to ask him to leave. She then asked whether Mr Yavuz could
have responded differently to the incident, to which he responded
that Mr Yavuz intervened to protect a customer. Finally, Councillor
Cousins asked the police why the criminal proceedings concluded,
and the police clarified that it was investigated as far as
possible but the victim didn’t want to cooperate so that was
as far as it could go.
 
The Sub-Committee were mindful
that the only representations they can consider under the Licensing
Act 2003 are those which are relevant to the licensing objectives
in relation to the sale of alcohol, namely:

i.             
Prevention of Crime & Disorder

ii.           
Prevention of Public Nuisance

iii.          
Public Safety

iv.          
Protection of Children from Harm.
 
Pursuant to Section 52 of the
Licensing Act 2003, upon a review of a licence it is open to the
Sub- Committee to:
•        Modify the
conditions of the premises licence;
•        Exclude a licensable
activity from the scope of the premises licence;
•        Remove the existing
Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS);
•        Suspend the premises
licence for a period not exceeding three months;
•        Revoke the premises
licence.
 
The premises are located within
the Woolwich town centre Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) as prescribed
by the current Royal Borough of Greenwich Licensing Policy.
However, for purposes of review proceedings, consideration of a CIZ
is not applicable in any event. Therefore the policies and Guidance
which apply are the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s licensing
policy and the Government Guidance, and the applications must be
considered on their individual merits.
 
The Sub-Committee were reminded
that as stated in the Government Guidance and under section 182 of
the Act, the police should be the licensing authority’s main
source of advice on crime and disorder. Furthermore, the
Sub-Committee were careful to note that their role was not to
assign criminal liability or blame but to ensure the licensing
objectives were upheld.
 
The Sub-Committee found that
the police’s concerns were serious and instructive, and noted
that the police sought revocation of both licences rather than any
other available outcome. The Sub-Committee considered Mr
Dadds’ submissions regarding what in fact happened during the
incident on 2 February 2025 but took the view that Mr Yavuz’
actions escalated rather than deescalated the level of violence in
the situation, did represent violent behaviour, and they found it
important that the force of the punch was such that it appeared to
render a member of the public unconscious. The Sub-Committee found
that this did undermine the licensing objectives of preventing
crime and disorder and ensuring public safety and did affect Mr
Yavuz’ suitability as a premises licence holder and
designated premises supervisor.
 
The Sub-Committee accepted that
the CCTV was not recoverable, however they were concerned that the
CCTV available at the time on the premises, which appeared to be
one system for the whole premises (and therefore applied to both
licences), did not appear to be sufficiently operational to comply
with the licence conditions of both licences in that the CCTV could
not be downloaded and provided to police. This was serious because
obtaining CCTV is an important part of preventing crime and
disorder by ensuring the police are able to do their job. The
Sub-Committee were very concerned that the retrospective action
taken to address the CCTV inadequacies, while welcome, suggests
that there was not comprehensive and rigorous adherence to the
licence conditions before this incident.
 
The Sub-Committee therefore
allowed the application to review both licences.
 
On the First Licence, the
Sub-Committee took a decision which was finely balanced not to
revoke the licence, given the above and in particular noting
concerns over Mr Yavuz’ suitability to be the designated
premises supervisor and the police’s lack of confidence in
him to uphold the licensing objectives and comply with important
conditions, which the premises licence holder should take very
seriously.
 
The Sub-Committee determined
that, by a narrow margin, it was more appropriate, proportionate,
and would have the effect of promoting the licensing objectives
to:

(i)          
remove Mr Yavuz as the designated premises
supervisor,

(ii)         
suspend the premises licence for a period of 6
weeks, and

(iii)       
modify the licence conditions so that condition 7
now reads as follows:
“Staff shall be fully
trained in the operation of the CCTV system and a training log
shall be kept which is updated every six months, and there shall be
at least one person on duty during trading hours who is able to
provide a recording of any incident at the request of the Police
and/or Licensing authority. Staff shall check that the CCTV is in
good working order on a quarterly basis and a record of those
checks will be kept at the Premises.”
 
In respect of the Second
Licence, the Sub-Committee noted that Mr Yavuz was not the
designated premises supervisor and that the venue was not open or
operational on the day of the incident. However, concerns about Mr
Yavuz’s suitability to be the Premises Licence Holder and
particularly regarding the CCTV and staff training remained, given
that it related to the same building and licence holder. Therefore,
the Sub-Committee resolved to make the same amendments to the
licence conditions as for the first licence, which also kept a
degree of parity between the two licences for the premises. As
such, the Sub-Committee decided:

(i)          
To modify the licence conditions so that condition 5
now reads as follows:
“Staff shall be fully
trained in the operation of the CCTV system and a training log
shall be kept which is updated every six months, and there shall be
at least one person on duty during trading hours who is able to
provide a recording of any incident at the request of the Police
and/or Licensing authority. Staff shall check that the CCTV is in
good working order on a quarterly basis and a record of those
checks will be kept at the Premises.”
 
 
This
is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee.