Content

In reaching its decision, the
Licensing Sub-Committee (“LSC”) considered the
Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act
2003, the Regulations made thereunder, and the Guidance issued by
the Secretary of State under S.182 of that Act. In discharging its
functions, the LSC did so with a view to promoting the licensing
objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety,
the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children
from harm. 
 
Having considered all written
representations, evidence, and oral submissions, the LSC resolved
to revoke the premises licence.
 
The interim suspension of the
premises licence was reviewed by the LSC and the LSC resolved to
re-impose the suspension of the premises licence until the time to
appeal against revocation of the premises licence expires or any
appeal to the magistrates’ court is determined.  
 
Basis of Decision
         
The Chair informed the meeting
that the LSC had viewed the cctv
recordings submitted by the police.
 
The LSC gave due weight to the
submissions of counsel for the police. The LSC noted that the DPS,
who is the de facto licence holder, had engaged in serious
violence. The video recording showed the DPS emerging from the
premises and escalating the violence when it appeared that the
incident was coming to an end between those involved. The DPS was
joined by a member of staff, both were armed with weapons. The
submissions for the police were that the DPS was unhelpful to
police, had not called the police, and stated that there was no
cctv on that side of the premises,
which was false, and did not stop staff from joining the
fight.
 
The LSC noted the history of
the premises and the non-compliance with licence conditions by the
DPS, including conditions relating to CCTV and staff training, and
his alleged involvement in violence on two previous occasions, as
set out in the evidence of the police.
 
The LSC noted the
representations and submissions from Trading Standards relating to
separate premises in Plumstead Road owned by the DPS and his wife
in respect of criminal activity by tenants running a business from
one of those properties. The DPS categorically denied any
responsibility for the contraband tobacco activities from the
premises owned and managed by his wife.   The DPS stated he had tried to speak to the
tenants but they would not engage with him, that his wife was the
landlord not him. The DPS stated he had no involvement in the
shop.  
 
The DPS did not deny his
involvement in the fighting outside the premises and stated he
should not have done so and he made a mistake in doing so. The LSC
noted that it appeared from the submissions of the DPS that trouble
had been brewing much earlier inside the premises and the DPS
should have at that point called the police. The LSC noted the
explanation of the DPS regarding there being no cctv being available, that the cctv did not cover the whole road where the
fighting was taking place. The DPS stated he called a guy to
provide the cctv footage to the
police.
 
The DPS stated he was prepared
to accept any decision the LSC made. 
 
The LSC concluded that removing
the DPS from the premises licence would not be sufficient to
promote the licensing objectives as he is the owner of the business
being the sole director of the company which holds the premises
licence.
 
The LSC determined that the DPS
and owner of the business had not conducted himself appropriately
in preventing crime and disorder and was not able to uphold and
promote the licensing objectives.
 
Any party aggrieved by this
decision may appeal to the magistrates’ court within 21
days.