Decision details

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.