Agenda item
Application by Metropolitan Police for a review of premises licence for Mace (17 College Parade, Salusbury Road, NW6 6RN) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003
Decision:
That the premises licence for Mace, 17 College Parade, Salusbury Road be revoked following the application by the metropolitan police for a review of the premises licence due to the failure to promote the licensing objectives, in (protection of children from harm, prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance. The sub committee were advised that 4 separate recorded incidents had taken place on the premises where a minor was sold alcohol the seriousness of which could not be overlooked by the Council as a responsible Licensing Authority. The sub-committee were of the opinion that the management was weak and demonstrated very little detailed knowledge of the licensing regime when questioned. The sub-committee were not convinced that the licence premises holder had sufficient measures in place to safeguard the interests of children so as not to have a repeat performance of an underage alcohol sale. The decision to revoke the licence was not taken lightly by the sub-committee and all of the circumstances of the case were properly considered. The sub-committee will only use the power of revocation as a last resort and when it is proportionate and reasonable to do so and where such grave concerns are highlighted as a cause for concern that are damaging to the licensing objectives (Protection of Children from Harm, Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Prevention of Public Nuisance, Public Safety). However, the circumstances of the case were of such a sensitive nature, it was necessary that the correct balance was struck, in making sure that the public were best protected when considering the upholding of the licensing objectives given the weigh of evidence put forward by the Police. The sub-committee during its decision making process had regard to the licence holders human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 (namely Article 6, Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol) the Councils statement of licensing policy in addition to the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003. Accordingly, in all of the circumstances of the case it was felt that the sub-committee’s decision was reasonable and proportionate Additionally the panel noted that the licence premises holder failed to work effectively in partnership with the Police by undertaking recommendations to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives.
Minutes:
The Senior Regulatory Services Manager informed the sub committee that an application by Metropolitan Police for a review of the premises licence for Mace (17 College Parade, Salusbury Road, NW6 6RN) had been received under the grounds of protection of children, prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder. The Legal Advisor explained to the sub committee that they had the following decision making powers:
· Modify and add conditions to the licence,
· Exclude licensable activity from the licence,
· Remove the designated premises supervisor (DPS),
· Suspend the licensing for a period of time no greater than three months, and
· Revoke the licence.
The Metropolitan Police were invited to make their representation and highlighted the following points:
· There were a variety of witness statements from police, neighbourhood police, residents and parents detailing the sale of alcohol to underage persons up to December 2013.
· Evidence of a 13 year old girl being sold alcohol, resulting in her being seriously ill during February 2014 was included in the pack.
· The premises had been offered a variety of opportunities to work with the Police to address issues but had not cooperated.
· An action plan was introduced to address issues but had not been actioned.
· The premises had chosen to not follow legal advise and continued to sell alcohol during the review consultation.
· Youths loitered outside of the shop and on occasions were drinking alcohol.
· CCTV had failed to be provided on request.
· The shop failed to promote the licensing objectives and the Police felt the licence should be revoked.
During questions of the Metropolitan Police the following points were clarified:
· None of the actions identified in the action plan had been completed to date following its submission to the premises in August 2012.
· Fixed penalty notices had been issues following the sale of alcohol to underage persons.
· A warrant was issued under section 23 of the misuse of drugs act on 8 March 2013 and Nazeem Bashir was charged for possession of cannabis.
The Legal Advisor informed the Sub Committee that the premises owners had made a request for the hearing to be adjourned due to their legal representative being unable to attend. He highlighted that the sub committee had discretion to do so but should consider the public interest and whether adjournment was appropriate. The premises owner informed the sub committee that their solicitor was unable to attend due to being booked for another appeal and although enquiring at other solicitors, none had been able to attend on behalf of the premises. The Metropolitan Police highlighted that they felt it was in the public interest to continue with the hearing and expressed concern that if adjourned, the premises would be able to operate and a serious incident could occur. The sub committee adjourned to deliberate the request for an adjournment by the premises owner. On reconvening the sub committee confirmed that the hearing would continue to take place due to the high public interest. The Legal Advisor highlighted that the hearing followed a fair and democratic process and there had been opportunity to seek legal advice and had not provided any evidence to demonstrate attempts to achieve alternative representation.
Richard Warrington, Neighbourhood Police for Queens Park ward was invited to speak. He informed the sub committee that he had worked in the area for five years and had never seen the DPS in the shop. He explained that reports of youths loitering had been received and believed this was linked to Nazeem’s friendly attitude towards them and him subsequently being issued with a fixed penalty notice for the sale of underage alcohol. He continued to report that the notices advising of the review had been removed from the premises and had offered support to the premises on numerous occasions, leaving his contact details. PC Warrington advised of an occasion when he arrived as two youths were being sold alcohol and on advising Nazeem Bashir to ask for ID, the customers left.
During questions of PC Warrington the following points were clarified:
· Had he walked in slightly later he believed he would have witness an underage sale of alcohol
· There were several local schools in the vicinity and the police received frequent calls regarding anti social behaviour and drinking outside the premises
· Only one phone call from the premises had been received reporting the issue of youths congregating outside the shop
The premises owners were invited to speak and highlighted the following points:
· They felt they could not address the sub committee correctly without a solicitor.
· The sale of underage alcohol that PC Warrington could have potentially witnessed was to persons over 18. It was clarified that on request for their ID they could not presented it and left the shop to retrieve it.
· They were willing to work with the Police to address issues.
· CCTV within the premises had always been present and working but difficulties in retrieval had now been resolved.
· There had been many allegations of illegal activities on the premises and following searches there had never been no evidence of such activities.
· It was difficult to stop youths loitering outside the shop as they could be aggressive at times.
· It was felt the Police were not available when help was required.
· Nazeem Bashir usually had family members with him whilst serving however the premises owners were happy to stop him working in the shop if it was felt this could resolve many issues.
· Over the past year the DPS had suffered from back pains which had prevented him being at the premises as much as he would have liked.
· The DPS had been in place and had only experienced recently due to his lack of presence at the premises.
· There was friction in the area from youths and addicts situated at the hotel opposite.
· It was felt there was prejudice towards the family which had prevented the family business attending local community meetings.
Following queries of the premises owners, the following points were clarified:
· Requests for CCTV had not been complied with due to difficulties in retrieving the information but technical support would be supplied next week to enable the footage to be retrieved and a second hard drive to enable greater retention
· The DPS would attend the premises for odd hours a day but was unable to serve for long periods of times
· The DPS was aware of some problems surrounding his brother working on the premises and was happy to remove him
· The DPS felt that youths loitering outside the shop were not linked to his brothers behaviour
· The DPS’s sister who also worked in the shop was currently being trained on a supervisory course
· The DPS was still receiving weekly physiotherapy and regretted the effect it had on the business.
· The DPS was willing to work with Police to find a way forward particularly where there were issues regarding youths.
· None of the workers in the store held a personal licence.
· Although the action plan stated Nazeem should not work in the shop, this action had not been complied with as he had been supervised whilst working
In summary the Metropolitan Police reiterated that the DPS had been made aware of a full list of problems at the premises but had failed to address the issues or contact the Police to resolve matters. As well as issues of selling underage, there were reports of sales to intoxicated persons and issues of antisocial behaviour surrounding the shop. Concern was expressed over the continued failure to produce CCTV and it was believed that the premises would not work with the Police. The Police concluded that although a family business, due to the seriousness of the continued sale of alcohol to underage alcohol they felt the most appropriate course of action was for the licence to be revoked.
In summary the premises owners advised that they were willing to remove Nazeem from the shop, produced the CCTV footage requested , attend community meetings and work with Police to progress forward.
The sub committee adjourned whilst deliberating their decision.
RESOLVED:
That the premises licence for Mace, 17 College Parade, Salusbury Road be revoked following the application by the metropolitan police for a review of the premises licence due to the failure to promote the licensing objectives, in particular the protection of children, prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance. The sub committee were particularly mindful that 4 separate incidents had taken place where a minor was sold alcohol and the seriousness of which could not be overlooked by the council as a responsible licensing authority. Additionally the panel were mindful of the failure to undertake recommendations from the metropolitan police to ensure promotion of the licensing objectives.
Supporting documents:
- mace-report, item 6. PDF 38 KB
- mace-review-application-one, item 6. PDF 692 KB
- mace-review-application-two, item 6. PDF 2 MB
- mace-premises-licence, item 6. PDF 18 KB
- mace-letter-enforcement, item 6. PDF 85 KB
- mace-police-letter-18-02-12, item 6. PDF 26 KB
- mace-police-letter-03-10-13, item 6. PDF 25 KB
- mace-police-CCTV-request, item 6. PDF 24 KB
- mace-police-evidence-18-05-12, item 6. PDF 113 KB
- mace-police-evidence-30-06-12-one, item 6. PDF 234 KB
- mace-police-evidence-30-06-12-two, item 6. PDF 77 KB
- mace-police-evidence-05-08-12-one, item 6. PDF 268 KB
- mace-police-evidence-05-08-12-two, item 6. PDF 95 KB
- mace-police-evidence-05-05-13, item 6. PDF 183 KB
- mace-police-evidence-14-09-13-one, item 6. PDF 120 KB
- mace-police-evidence-14-09-13-two, item 6. PDF 80 KB
- mace-police-evidence-22-09-13, item 6. PDF 757 KB
- mace-police-evidence-11-10-13, item 6. PDF 86 KB
- mace-police-evidence-05-11-13, item 6. PDF 102 KB
- mace-FPN-14-09-12, item 6. PDF 726 KB
- mace-FPN-30-06-12, item 6. PDF 250 KB
- mace-NSG-record, item 6. PDF 82 KB
- mace-photo, item 6. PDF 406 KB
- mace-photo-alcohol-under-counter, item 6. PDF 353 KB
- mace-photo-wine-under-counter-one, item 6. PDF 207 KB
- mace-photo-wine-under-counter-two, item 6. PDF 212 KB
- mace-photo-drink-cups-under-counter-one, item 6. PDF 331 KB
- mace-photo-drink-cups-under-counter-two, item 6. PDF 2 MB
- Supp-Mace-CCTV request February 2014, item 6. PDF 66 KB
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 6./30 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 6./31 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 6./32 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 6./33 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 6./34 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 6./35 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 6./36 is restricted