Greenwich Council

Agenda item.

Euro Food and Wine, 12 Plumstead Road, Woolwich, SE18 7BZ

Interim Steps Representation

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Royal Borough of Greenwich

 

Licensing Sub-Committee

 

Representations Against Interim Steps

 

30th November 2018

 

Euro Food and Wine,

12 Plumstead Road,

Woolwich, SE18 7BZ

 

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee heard representations on behalf of the licence holders against the Interim Step imposed on 28th November 2018 to suspend the premises licence upon considering an application for a Summary Review.

 

The Sub-Committee resolved that the interim step to suspend the premises licence shall continue until the full review hearing.

 

In reaching its decision the Sub Committee had due regard to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under S.182 of that Act. In discharging its functions the Sub-Committee 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.

 

The Sub-Committee heard submissions from Mr Graham, solicitor for the licence holder, and who attended accompanied by Mr Manoharan, the manager of the licensed premises. Mr Graham accepted on behalf of the joint licence holders that alcohol was being sold from the premises, in breach of the premises licence, and there was violence outside the premises. Mr Graham submitted there was no causal link between the individuals wielding baseball bats and the premises. It was further submitted that alcohol was being supplied because of a misunderstanding in that no written decision had been received following the earlier review hearing on 3rd October 2018. Mr Thavaseelen, the joint licence holder and designated premises supervisor, had been present at the review hearing on 3rd October 2018 but was unrepresented and did not understand the decision of 3rd October 2018. Moreover, it was submitted that the written decision of 3rd October 2018 had not been received and the first occasion staff became aware was when police officers attended at the premises on 11th November 2018.

 

Mr Graham confirmed that Mr Thavaseelen was not in attendance for this hearing as he was away in Sri Lanka.  

 

Mr Graham submitted that an Undertaking was being offered to ensure that the premises did not open beyond 11pm at night and that there were no problems during the day time.

 

Sergeant Henderson on behalf of the police, submitted that that Mr Thavaseelen had minimal involvement with the management of the premises, he was also away before the review hearing on 3rd October 2018, and the premises was being managed poorly and he had no trust in the running of the premises even during day time.

 

The Sub-Committee considered that Mr Thavaseelen should have, as a responsible business operator who was present at that 3rd October meeting and has a number of years experience, taken steps to seek advice or make enquiries regarding the decision of the Sub-Committee which reduced the hours for licensable activities and modified the condition of the premises licence. The Sub-Committee also noted that the joint licence holder, Mrs Thavaseelen was also not present for either of the hearings.

 

In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee had serious concerns for the safety of the public, and crime and disorder associated with the premises. There had been a complete disregard of the licensing objectives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

In attendance:

Applicant for Review:      Sergeant Henderson (Police Licensing Team

 

Licence Holder:              Shanjayan Maoharan, Mr Graham (Dadds LLP Solicitors)

 

The Chair welcomed all parties and ensured that introductions were made, all papers had been received and that all parties were aware of their right to be represented.

 

The licence holders legal representative stated he was unsure as to what papers where being referred to however was happy to proceed having seen the CCTV footage prior to the hearing.

 

The Sub-Committee heard representations on behalf of the licence holder against the Interim Step imposed on 28th November 2018 to suspend the premises licence upon considering an application for a Summary Review.

 

The licence holder gave a brief summary of the report.

 

The Sub-Committee was addressed by the licence holders legal representative who accepted that alcohol was being sold outside the hours agreed in the 3 October 2018 review hearing decision and stated his client was aware that this was not acceptable. He explained that his client had mistakenly believed that the amendments to the licence would only apply after the 21 day appeal period had expired and as he hadn’t received a decision notice he continued to operate as normal. He was subsequently made aware of the error by the police and stopped selling alcohol immediately.

 

The licence holders legal representative offered an alternative to the interim-steps decision. That the premises would close entirely after 11pm thereby preventing any issues arising from the late operating hours and the possibility of crime and disorder. He stated that the suspension of the licence would have a financial detriment on his client to the amount of £5000 a week and this needed to be balanced against the prevention of crime and disorder.

 

In terms of the CCTV footage, the licence holders legal representative stated there was no causal link between the premises and the 2 aggressors in the incident which was taking place as far as the street corner. He added that the best way to address those hanging around the premises was close it close it completely after 11pm until the hearing on 19 December. He continued that the affect this closure has on the crime and disorder and nuisance in the area could be monitored and be used as a guide for the hearing.

 

In response to a question, the licence holders legal representative stated he had not seen any evidence of the aggressors in the incident being served alcohol by the premises however, the premises was at fault for serving any alcohol outside the prescribed hours.

 

The Sub Committee noted that those congregating outside the premises were involved in the incident.

 

In response to a question, the licence holders legal representative reiterated that his client had misunderstood the implementation process of the decision at the last review hearing and had he known that the licence had been amended immediately he would not have been selling alcohol at those hours. He added that the licence holder was currently receiving expert advise from Dadds LLP solicitors in order to rectify any issues and the CCTV on the premesis had been fixed.

 

In response to a question, the Corporate Governance Officer confirmed that the decision notice for the 03 October Licensing Review Sub-Committee was circulated within 5 working days of the hearing.

 

The Sub Committee was addressed by the Sergeant Henderson of the Police Licensing Team, who highlighted that the applicant was in Sri Lanka and had no control of the business and did not seem to understand how his licence worked. He stated that the CCTV footage showed violent disorder with direct links to the premises, which should no longer be allowed to trade alcohol.

 

The chair allowed for an opportunity for any further discussions. There was none.

 

All parties, with the exception of the Legal Advisor and Corporate Governance Officer, withdrew to allow the Sub-Committee to deliberate at 11.20am. All parties returned at 11.31pm.

 

The Chair informed those present of the decision of the Sub-Committee, and stated that the full details would be given in the formal decision notice.

 

The Sub-Committee resolved that the interim step to suspend the premises licence shall continue until the full review hearing.

 

In reaching its decision the Sub Committee had due regard to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under S.182 of that Act. In discharging its functions the Sub-Committee 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.

 

The Sub-Committee heard submissions from Mr Graham, solicitor for the licence holder, and who attended accompanied by Mr Manoharan, the manager of the licensed premises. Mr Graham accepted on behalf of the joint licence holders that alcohol was being sold from the premises, in breach of the premises licence, and there was violence outside the premises. Mr Graham submitted there was no causal link between the individuals wielding baseball bats and the premises. It was further submitted that alcohol was being supplied because of a misunderstanding in that no written decision had been received following the earlier review hearing on 3rd October 2018. Mr Thavaseelen, the joint licence holder and designated premises supervisor, had been present at the review hearing on 3rd October 2018 but was unrepresented and did not understand the decision of 3rd October 2018. Moreover, it was submitted that the written decision of 3rd October 2018 had not been received and the first occasion staff became aware was when police officers attended at the premises on 11th November 2018.

 

Mr Graham confirmed that Mr Thavaseelen was not in attendance for this hearing as he was away in Sri Lanka.  

 

Mr Graham submitted that an Undertaking was being offered to ensure that the premises did not open beyond 11pm at night and that there were no problems during the day time.

 

Sergeant Henderson on behalf of the police, submitted that that Mr Thavaseelen had minimal involvement with the management of the premises, he was also away before the review hearing on 3rd October 2018, and the premises was being managed poorly and he had no trust in the running of the premises even during day time.

 

The Sub-Committee considered that Mr Thavaseelen should have, as a responsible business operator who was present at that 3rd October meeting and has a number of years experience, taken steps to seek advice or make enquiries regarding the decision of the Sub-Committee which reduced the hours for licensable activities and modified the condition of the premises licence. The Sub-Committee also noted that the joint licence holder, Mrs Thavaseelen was also not present for either of the hearings.

 

In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee had serious concerns for the safety of the public, and crime and disorder associated with the premises. There had been a complete disregard of the licensing objectives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: