Agenda Template
L LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE Friday 24 April 2015 at 2.30 pm MINUTES PRESENT: Councillor Linda Bray, Councillor Jane Edbrooke and Councillor Saleha Jaffer APOLOGIES: ALSO PRESENT: Action required by 1 ELECTION OF CHAIR MOVED by Councillor Linda Bray, SECONDED by Councillor Saleha Jaffer and, RESOLVED: That Councillor Jane Edbrooke be elected as Chair of the meeting. 2 DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS None. 3 LICENSING APPLICATIONS FOR THE GRANT / REVIEW OF A PREMISES LICENCE Special circumstances justifying urgent consideration An application for a Summary/Expedited review under Section 53A (of the Licensing Act 2003) was submitted to Lambeth Council on 23 April 2015 in respect of the Premises Licence held. On receipt of a valid Summary Review application the Licensing Authority must, within 48 hours, consider whether it is necessary to take any interim steps pending determination of the review of the premises licence. The Sub-Committee has been convened for the purpose of settling what if any interim steps may be necessary. The Authority must then undertake the full review within 28 days of receipt of the application. The Chair is of the opinion that although the meeting has not been convened with at least five clear days’ notice, it should proceed now as a matter of urgency to consider the expedited review because of the special circumstances of the need to comply with the statutory requirements of the Licensing Act 2003. This hearing will be conducted as a normal hearing but the outcomes will be an interim measure pending a full review. The options that can be taken at this expedited review hearing are as follows: Modification of the conditions of the premises licence; Exclusion of the sale of alcohol by retail from the scope of the licence; Removal of the designated premises supervisor from the licence; and, Suspension of the licence. 3a FRIDGE BAR BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOOR 1 TOWN HALL PARADE BRIXTON HILL LONDON SW2 1RW Presentation by the Licensing Officer The Licensing Officer explained the process for considering the request for the summary licence review which had been submitted by the Metropolitan Police. The Sub-Committee would consider whether any interim measures were appropriate pending a full review of the licence within 28 days of the request for the summary licence review. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out on page 4 of the agenda papers. These were: a) b) c) d) e) to modify the conditions of the premises licence; to exclude the sale of alcohol by retail from the scope of the licence; to remove the designated premises supervisor; to suspend the licence; and, to take no action. The Licensing Officer then confirmed: The application had been received on 23 April 2015 regarding the Fridge Bar following an incident on 19 April 2015. This involved the manager, supervisor and members of the public. It was understood that excessive force had been used against members of the public perpetrated by members of staff at the premises. The application was received at 11:24 on 23 April 2015. Superintendent Neil Paton had informed that he had been of the opinion that the premises were associated with serious crime and serious disorder. This application could be found on page 13-17 of the agenda papers. The Police have asked for the premises licence to be suspended. The premises licence allowed various forms of regulated entertainment including the supply of alcohol. The premises was open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Photos of the premises, a map and an email sent from Mr Dadds had been circulated to the committee. Presentation by the Applicant The applicant, Sergeant Tony Jarred and PC Sandell informed the Sub-Committee that: The Police had submitted an application for an expedited review emanating from a serious incident occurring late on the Saturday night until early Sunday morning. Two males had been injured during the incident. Upon initial investigation, it had been understood that the perpetrators were members of staff working at the premises. Possible Police measures were considered, but an investigation indicated that one of the perpetrators involved in the incident was listed as a director at the business. This was understood to be Mr Daley, but he was also known as Mr Irvin. Lambeth’s CCTV operator had informed the Police about the incident. There had not been a call made from the premises staff to the Police. The CCTV operator had informed that he observed somebody having been struck with a torch. Two male victims had been hit, struck and punched. Two victims were taken to hospital with head injuries. One individual had been hit with a torch a number of times. There had been a pattern of behaviour in relation to incidences occurring at the premises. There had been a meeting with the Premises Licence Holder and the Designated Premises Supervisor in January 2015. Assurances had been given that relevant safeguards would be put in place to promote the licensing objectives. However, it appeared that there had been staff members appointed at the premises carrying out SIA licensed activities without a SIA licence. There appeared to have been a staff member committing a serious offence. This was considered to be so severe that the Sub-Committee was recommended to suspend the licence in the interim before the licence would be reviewed at a full review hearing. In response to questions from Members, Sergeant Tony Jarred and PC Sandell informed the Sub-Committee that: One of the alleged perpetrators, Mr Daley, had since been charged with Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). Another alleged perpetrator was being investigated for Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). In the recent past, there had been serious incidences of GBH, ABH, common assaults, other assaults and general order issues involving the premises. There had been a number of incidents where door staff at the premises had alleged that they had suffered from assaults. My Daley had previously not been allowed to enter the premises, or be employed by or involved in the management of the business due to a condition placed on the premises licence in 2008. Mr Daley was known to the Police and Police Officers recognised him from CCTV. The Police were still obtaining statements from all the people involved in the incident. Mr Daley had been charged by the Police. When the altercation transferred outdoors, staff at the premises continued to have been involved in the incident. Police were looking to arrest two more individuals in relation to the incident. The incident had started in the basement area of the premises and people were ejected from the area. Some CCTV evidence had been provided, however, it could not be discerned from the limited footage how the altercation transferred from the basement to the outside of the premises. People had been ejected earlier in the evening and remained outside the premises in an area commonly used for smoking. This had been where the incident escalated and there had been fighting near the bus stop on the pavement. Mr Daley’s presence at the premises was not in contradiction of previously agreed conditions in 2008 as there had been a variation of the premises licence in 2012. One door supervisor was understood to have had his SIA licence expire in July 2014; this was pending confirmation. However, the registry database for SIA licence holders appeared to support this. It was understood that there were other staff members carrying out the role of an SIA licenced staff member but were not SIA licenced. In comparison to other venues, the level of volatile incidences occurring at the venue was high. This was why police were invited to a meeting with the Designated Premises Supervisor and the Premises Licence Holder regarding how issues could be resolved. There had been some assurances made and actions agreed to ensure that there would be an improvement; however, there had been a few incidences since, including the incident on 19 April 2015. This was a serious incident and it also involved staff at the premises and a director of the company. Presentation by the Licence Holder The licence holder’s representative, Mr David Dadds informed the Sub-Committee that: This was an incident that occurred at premises but this was not due to members of staff. Staff members had been ejecting someone and when they got outside, the doorman believed that someone may have had a knife. Steps were taken to ensure that there was no danger to other members of staff or members of the public. Staff members were not the aggressors of the incident. They were simply over-protecting themselves. This had been an incident that had escalated. The Designated Premises Supervisor had said it was a serious allegation. Door staff and Mr Daley would be suspended until a full investigation was completed. In relation to the door supervisor who may not be registered as an SIA licenced person, the Designated Premises Supervisor had given the former registration number of the individual but not the newly allocated number. The individual was still registered as an SIA licenced person. In relation to the other incidences alleged by the applicant, there had not been any other incidences cited in the report other than the incident on 19 April 2015. The incident on 19 April 2015 resulted in some serious injuries. The matter had arisen in the premises before escalating outside. The door supervisor had believed that someone had a knife. In relation to the striking movement towards the individual, this was performed to disarm the person with a knife. As the incident had occurred, it would be suggested that the next proposed steps that should be taken would be the ones set out by the Licensing Consultant found in the additional papers submitted to the Sub-Committee. In relation to the past issues with the premises, in 2006 there had been an incident that had occurred at the premises. The premises licence was subsequently revoked. After an appeal hearing the district judge allowed for the licence to remain in place for Ms Asha (the Designated Premises Supervisor). A condition was placed that Mr Daley would not be allowed into the premises. Ms Asha had built positively upon the licence she obtained in 2008. The licence was then varied with the consent of the Police in August 2012 which allowed Mr Daley back into the premises. This incident was the first complaint of Mr Daley since he had been allowed back into the premises. Although this was an unsubstantiated allegation, as a precautionary measure, the premises licence holder would remove Mr Daley from being allowed back into the premises. A suspension of the premises licence of twenty-eight days would extinguish the business. The proportionate approach would be to remove Mr Daley and recruit a new door supervisor company. The search policy at the premises needed to be reviewed and would be done alongside the Independent Licensing Consultant who would be retained as a consultant. A voluntary closure period of fourteen days was proposed so that all processes could be reviewed and changes put into place. There would be a full review in twenty-eight days and the Police may report back to the Sub-Committee with no further evidence. This would be a proportionate approach to the concerns raised. In response to questions from Members, Mr Dadds informed the Sub-Committee that: Some aspects of the violence were due to the heat of the moment. Mr Daley had reported that he took reasonable steps. Mr Daley had informed that he was no longer director at the business and he believed that he acted proportionately and in self-defence. Although a condition had been placed in 2008 to no longer allow Mr Daley back into the premises, he was later permitted to come back in 2012. Although Mr Daley had been found guilty of a matter previously did not mean he was guilty of this incident. The Designated Premises Supervisor, Ms Afia Asha informed the Sub-Committee that: All customers and visitors and would be searched and bags would be examined. There were female door supervisors who searched female customers and visitors An electronic wand would be used to check for hidden metal objects. All customers would be both physically checked and checked using the electronic wand. This process was robust. In response to questions from Members, Ms Asha and Mr Dadds informed the Sub-Committee that: The incident had originally occurred in the basement of the premises. There were two groups of men involved. The security staff had separated one of the groups and called for additional help from security. The group was then removed from the building by security. The group was then followed by the second group of men and when outside there was pushing and shoving. The security staff further separated the two groups outside the premises. The two groups were ejected from the area and were not pursued further by security staff. The two groups had an altercation by the bus stop and security stood down. The second group left the area. The initial group then asked for re-entry into the premises but were not allowed in. One individual, detailed to have a tattoo on his face, wanted to come into the premises and subsequently one of the door staff members was physically assaulted. No one had called the Police as the incident happened extremely quickly and a staff radio was lost in the melee. Radios would usually be used in this type of incident. A meeting had been held with Hannah Eldrige from the Met Police towards the start of the year. The start of a year was usually a period where some people attempted to retaliate to ongoing conflicts. There had been some serious incidences occurring at the premises during the New Year period. For example, a staff member had been attacked with a large knife. She had not been asked about body cameras at the meeting with Hannah Eldrige. She explained at the meeting that the premises did not usually deal with conflicts between patrons, however the incidents had happened within a concentrated period of time. It had been suggested that an arch be put in place, however the idea had been later negated due to possible further criminal activity as a result of its existence. Some people did things that they may regret and Mr Daley had regretted his actions in the past. He had served his sentence previously and the Police had accepted his rehabilitation. It had been almost ten years since the incident in 2006 involving Mr Daley. Nothing had been proven against Mr Daley thus far in relation to the incident on 19 April 2015. Mr Daley had not recently come under critical Police attention until the incident on 19 April 2015. When internal staff radio did not work, headphones would be installed so that staff members could adequately communicate. Ms Asha was part of the Night Time Economy Forum, the Safer Lambeth Steering group and a member of the BCRP. Ms Asha had a good relationship with the Police. Ms Asha was on holiday with her children during the time of the incident and would not be on holiday during the time the premises was under review. Ms Asha and staff members at the premises had cooperated with Police, had provided CCTV evidence and had assisted in arresting one of the individuals involved in the incident. Members then recalled Sergeant Tony Jarred and PC Sandell to address matters arising. Sergeant Tony Jarred and PC Sandell informed the Sub-Committee that: No knife was found in relation to the incident. No firearms were found in relation to the incident. An expedited review would only ever be requested by Police when issues occurring at venues were considered to be serious in nature. Adjournment and Decision At 3:15pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the legal advisor and clerk to deliberate in private. The SubCommittee had heard and considered representations from Sergeant Jarred, PC Sandell, Mr Dadds and Ms Asha. Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to grant the review, suspend the licence and amend the conditions of the licence for the following reasons: This was an application by the police for an expedited review of premises at the Fridge Bar. The police related an incident of violence following the ejection of the customers from the premises. Once outside, those people were allegedly assaulted by the door staff and Mr Daley who is one of the directors of the company holding the premises licence. The investigation was still ongoing. The police stated that Mr Daley had previously been removed from the premises licence and was excluded from the premises as a licence condition. There were other issues as well, such as the member of the door staff whose SIA badge had expired in July 2014. The police also believed that there were other people acting in an SIA capacity who were not licenced to do so. There were also concerns that there was no call to the police from the premises regarding the incident and it had been reported to them from the Lambeth CCTV operator. The police made references to other incidents, some said to involve Mr Daley, others said to involve staff at the premises. However, there was little detail before the Sub-Committee in relation to those. The Sub-Committee also heard from David Dadds on behalf of the premises licence holder. There was no dispute whatsoever, that the incident took place. However, it was said that Mr Daley believed that one of the victims had a knife and he had acted in self-defence and that of others. The question of whether or not he did believe that and whether or not he used excessive force were a matter for the court. With regard to the doorperson whose licence had lapsed, the SubCommittee was told that the wrong licence number had been provided to the police by the Designated Premises Supervisor but that he would be happy to provide the correct number to the police to show that he was licenced and that this was simply a mistake. Mr Dadds pointed out that both individuals were taken to the hospital but were discharged. Mr Dadds pointed out that Mr Daley had been convicted of an offence in 2006 when he was involved with the premises. The licence was ultimately revoked and an appeal was allowed and one of the conditions was that Mr Daley not be associated with the premises. Afia Asha and her company took over in 2008. In August 2012, an application for a minor variation was made so as to allow Mr Daley to work at the premises. Mr Dadds said the Police did not object to this variation. Mr Dadds says that this incident was the first complaint received in relation to him. Mr Dadds told the Sub-Committee that a suspension of 28 days would destroy the business and he offered up various conditions including the further removal of Mr Daley from the management of the premises and a review of the various policies and a voluntary closure for two weeks. When asked why no one from the premises called the police, Ms Asha said everything had happened very quickly and that their BCRP radio had been lost in the melee. When asked why no decision to use body cameras had been made previously, Ms Asha said that she had a meeting with Hannah Eldrige in the new year following an incident where a staff member had been attacked by someone wielding a machete. Ms Asha said however that she wasn’t asked about body cameras at this meeting. The Sub-Committee carefully considered all of the options open to it. Given that this incident occurred it was quite clear that taking no action was not an option. The Sub-Committee did not consider that the exclusion of the sale of alcohol by retail was necessary as there was no suggestion that drinking played any part in this incident. The Sub-Committee found Ms Asha to be credible and honest and willing to engage with responsible authorities and noted that this incident took place when she herself was on holiday. The Sub-Committee did not think that it was necessary to remove her as the Designated Premises Supervisor. However, the authority did consider some period of suspension to be necessary; however, in light of the lack of evidence of other incidents involving the premises the Sub-Committee could not be certain that suspension pending the full review was necessary. The Sub-Committee did however accept that there needed to be some time in which the premises were closed so as to allow reviews of its policies to take place and the Sub-Committee was satisfied that fourteen days was the appropriate period of time in which to suspend the licence. The Sub-Committee was also imposing the conditions proposed by the licence holder and these were: 1. Ralph Daley is not to be involved in any way in the management or operation of the premises. Ralph Daley is not to enter the premises in any capacity. 2. The premises licence holder shall appoint a new SIA approved contractor to be approved by the Police and the number of door supervisors to be employed at anytime is likewise to be agreed with the police. 3. All door supervisors shall be equipped with body cameras which are to be operating correctly at all times that licensable activities are taking place. The Premises licence holder shall provide the police or the licensing authority with any such footage on request. 4. The premises license holder shall review the existing search policy which is to include training and instructions to staff. The policy is to be provided to the police and the licensing authority within fourteen days. The premises are to review its risk assessment for promotions, Disc Jockeys and artists. The process must ensure a clear line of communication with the police to reduce the potential for violence and the outcome of the review is to be provided to the police and the licensing authority within fourteen days. The premises is to carry out a full review of its existing promotions events and Disc Jockeys in order to identify patterns of incidents or associations of disorder with regard to particular events or dates and the outcome of that review is to be provided to the police and to the licensing authority within fourteen days. For the avoidance of doubt this decision is to take effect immediately. RESOLVED: To grant the review, suspend the licence and amend the conditions of the licence. Announcement of Decision Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to grant the review, suspend the licence and amend the conditions of the licence. The meeting ended at 4:20pm CHAIR LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE Tuesday 12 May 2015 Date of Despatch: Tuesday 28 April 2015 Contact for Enquiries: Nazyer Choudhury Tel: 020 7926 0028 Fax: (020) 7926 2361 E-mail: nchoudhury@lambeth.gov.uk Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk The action column is for officers' use only and does not form a part of the formal record.
© Copyright 2024