The Statutory Licensing Sub-Committee of Wolverhampton Council met to consider an application for a review of the premises licence for The Gate, and to hear representations from West Midlands Police, Public Health, and the Licensing Authority. Councillor Zee Russell, Chair of the committee, was scheduled to preside over the meeting.

Licensing Act 2003 Application for a Review of a Premises Licence

The sub-committee was scheduled to consider an application from West Midlands Police for a review of the premises licence for The Gate, 378 Bilston Road, Wolverhampton, WV2 2PD.

The application for review was brought in support of the four licensing objectives[^2]: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm.

According to the application, Police Sergeant Reynolds received an email from an investigating officer regarding an assault linked to The Gate. The investigating team had contacted the designated premises supervisor (DPS)/licence holder requesting CCTV footage from inside the premises, but were told that there were no cameras inside and that the licence holder was unaware that they were required.

According to the police report, the assault was crimed as a Section 18 wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The report stated that all parties were inside the premises when an argument started, which then continued outside. The victim attempted to stop the fight and was struck in the face and head with a house brick.

The police report also stated that Police Sergeant Reynolds spoke to the premises licence holder (PLH) and DPS, Raj Kumar Jassal, who confirmed that he was the licence holder but not the DPS. Raj Kumar Jassal stated that Paul Douglas Tonks was the DPS, and before him, James Reade. Raj Kumar Jassal also said that he had not been the DPS since 2008, and that since then about six staff had worked as the DPS.

Raj Kumar Jassal told Police Sergeant Reynolds that there used to be CCTV inside the premises, but James Reade had removed the hard drive a few years ago and had not replaced it. Raj Kumar Jassal said that he had asked James Reade to put it back, and had also told Paul Douglas Tonks to replace it, but this was never completed. Raj Kumar Jassal confirmed that there had been no CCTV inside the premises for years, and that as it was not a condition on his licence, he did not believe it was required.

Police Sergeant Reynolds asked if any variation of DPS applications had been submitted for all of the changes, and Raj Kumar Jassal replied that they had not.

The police raised concerns that the premises was not being run properly and that all licensing objectives were being undermined. They stated that the PLH had no authority or control over the premises and that it was left to the DPS. They also stated that there had been no applications submitted to vary the DPS, and as such it was unknown who was running the premises or whether they were suitable or held a valid personal licence.

The police requested that the sub-committee address these issues by implementing several steps:

• One month suspension of the current premises licence.
• An amendment of the operating schedule to amend conditions.
• A reduction in licensable timings.
• The removal of the current designated premises supervisor.

Public Health submitted formal representations supporting the review of the licence, stating that they were not reassured that the business was operating in adherence to the Licensing Act.

The Licensing Authority also submitted formal representations in support of the review applied for by West Midlands Police. They stated that they had concerns over the PLH and DPS Raj Kumar Jassal, as the evidence provided by West Midlands Police indicated that he was not upholding the licensing objectives and was therefore putting the public at risk.

The Licensing Authority stated that the evidence showed a blatant disregard for public safety by the PLH, DPS and the management.

The Licensing Authority requested that the sub-committee ensure these issues are addressed in accordance with Section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003 and guidance issued by the Secretary of State under 182 of the Act, together with City of Wolverhampton Council's Statement of Licensing Policy.

The current premises licence stated that the licensable activities authorised by the licence were: films, indoor sporting events, live music, recorded music, activity like music or dance, facility for making music, facilities for dancing, late night refreshment, and the sale/supply of alcohol on and off the premises.