Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

 

The Metropolitan Police representative addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the police.  The police requested that the meeting go into closed session to show the sub-committee still from the CCTV and witness statements.

 

It was moved, seconded and

 

RESOLVED:

 

  That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in category 7 of paragraph 10.4 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Southwark Constitution.

 

All parties other than the police were excluded from the meeting from 1.1.48pm to 2.15pm while the sub-committee viewed the CCTV stills and read the witness statements.

 

The licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority then addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

 

The licensing sub-committee noted the written representation from the public health authority.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the representatives for the premises.  Members had questions for the representatives for the premises.

 

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

 

The meeting adjourned at 3.39pm for the members to consider their decision.

 

The meeting resumed at 4.35pm and the chair advised all parties of the sub-committee’s decision.

 

The chair then invites all parties for their submissions regarding interim steps.

 

The meeting adjourned at 4.40pm for members to consider their decision in relation to the interim steps.

 

The meeting reconvened at 4.45pm and the chair advised all parties that the interim steps would remain.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the council’s licensing sub-committee, having had regard to the application by the Metropolitan Police for a review of the premises licence in respect of the premises known as Sir Robert Peel, 7 Langdale Close, London SE17 3UF and also having had regard to all other relevant representations has decided it necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives to revoke the licence.

 

 

 

 

Reasons

 

The reasons for this decision are the severity of the incident on 25 February 2018 and the related flagrant breaches of the premises licence and the law earlier that evening and at the time of the incident.

 

On 25 February 2018 a customer was fatally stabbed in the pub. This took place during a period when the pub was serving alcohol two and a half hours after permitted hours (by a member of the bar staff who was also smoking behind the bar and handing out ashtrays to customers) and on an evening when regulated entertainment had continued after permitted hours. Mr MacCarthy (the Licence Holder and DPS/ex DPS) disputed none of these allegations, indeed they were all captured on the pub’s CCTV. It is quite possible that the stabbing would not have occurred had the pub been complying with its licence because none of the individuals would have been in the pub drinking alcohol.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the Metropolitan Police Service representative (PC White, who was also joined by PC Lynch and PC Ducker), the applicant for the review, who advised that in the early hours of Sunday 25 February 2018 there was a serious incident in the premises whereby a customer was fatally stabbed by a someone who had earlier that night also been a customer drinking at the pub. This stabbing took place during an evening when breaches of the licence and breaches of the law were taking place including serving alcohol and provision of entertainment beyond permitted hours, and smoking in doors by staff. Had these breaches of the licence not taken place it is quite possible that the stabbing would not have taken place because those individuals would not have been in the pub drinking alcohol.

 

The Metropolitan Police requested a closed session excluding the public (including Mr MacCarthy, Miss Lonergan and their counsel) for some of its evidence on the grounds that to submit it to the licensing sub-committee publically would undermine the investigation of two serious crimes. The summary nature of this review meant that police investigations were still underway at the time of the hearing. Mr MacCarthy was given the opportunity make representations resisting exclusion of the public and, through his counsel, he stated that the sub-committee should be mindful of any evidence that could be disclosed which would not in fact undermine the investigation of those crimes.

 

The licensing sub-committee decided to hear some of the hearing in closed session. This was done only in respect of part the police’s evidence and, having seen that evidence, the sub-committee arranged to be disclosed to the Licence Holder those parts of the evidence which need not be protected (including 7 CCTV ‘stills’ showing breaches of the premises licence and law: serving alcohol and running regulated entertainment after licensed hours, smoking in doors etc.). The sub-committee had regard to the Licence Holders human and fundamental rights including Article 6 ECHR. It resolved that any interference with Article 6 ECHR was necessary in the interests of justice (including public order and the investigation/prevention of crimes) and proportionate because the closed session applied to as little of the evidence before them as possible.

 

The Metropolitan Police requested that the licensing sub-committee consider revoking the licence.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from licensing as a responsible authority who advised that they supported the revocation of the licence on similar grounds: inadequate and opaque management where it had been and was still difficult to know who was accountable for what, especially when things went wrong which they had in the past. Licensing did not have faith in the management of Mr MacCarthy going forward if the licence were not revoked.

 

The licensing sub-committee noted the written representation from the public health authority supporting the review.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from both Mr MacCarthy and Miss Lonergan, directly and through their counsel, who stated that Mr MacCarthy had been in charge and/or managing licensed premises for around 20-25 years and had done so for much of that time without incident. He admitted that he had taken his eye of the ball in respect of this pub and was wrong to place his trust in people such as Mr Clancy who it was clear had had some kind of management or responsibility of the pub for the last few years. He stated that contrary to the particularly violent episode on 25 February 2018 the pub is actually largely a family pub which has a great deal of daytime trade from older people.

 

He said that he will take back control of the pub going forward to ensure there will be no further breaches of the licence and will have control until someone else, preferably Miss Lonergan, can take over the lease which expired in September 2017. He accepted the management structure was opaque from the outside but going forward he assured the sub-committee that he would be in control.

 

Miss Lonergan stated she had invested £20,000 of her own money in the pub. She also stated that she was going make arrangements for her and Mr MacCarthy to be able to view CCTV from the pub on their mobile phones to improve security. A Reduction in the licensed hours for selling alcohol was also offered.

 

Notwithstanding the representations made by Mr MacCarthy and Miss Lonergan, the sub-committee had no faith that the licensing objectives would be promoted by the continued management of Mr MacCarthy or any other persons who have been involved hitherto or any other person who Mr MacCarthy might appoint in the future.

 

In neglecting the premises for the past four years MacCarthy had shown himself to be an irresponsible and neglectful licence holder and DPS. Indeed even he conceded that he had made real errors and taken his “eye off the ball”, as did Miss Lonergan. There were a number of uncertainties and contradictions given when Miss Lonergan and Mr MacCarthy attempted to explain who and how the pub had been managed during the past 4 years (including on the night in question). Moreover they described the hearing as an ‘eye opener’ because neither was aware of the extent of the problems. Whoever was ultimately responsible during that period, he or she was neither the licence holder nor the DPS and their mismanagement reflected poorly on Mr MacCarthy. The sub-committee were not convinced that Mr MacCarthy would take a proper and active role in managing the premises.

 

The licensing sub-committee also took into account the breaches of the licence between 2014-2017 which included playing music and selling alcohol after licensed hours.

 

It should be noted that the licensing sub-committee would have arrived at the same decision irrespective of the limited amount of evidence shown in closed session and not subsequently disclosed to the public.

 

In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations including national and local licensing policy, its obligations under s.17 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, all oral and written representations, and the four licensing objectives. The sub-committee was mindful of the need to reach a decision which was necessary, proportionate and justified on the evidence before them.

 

Interim steps

 

On 2 March 2018 the following interim steps were applied by the sub-committee in order to promote the licensing objectives:

 

a)  the suspension of the premises licence; and

b)  the removal of the designated premises supervisor.

 

There is no evidence that those interim steps were not complied with since their imposition.

 

At the hearing on 27 March 2018 the licensing sub-committee reviewed those interim steps.

 

The Metropolitan Police and licensing authority invited the sub-committee to keep the interim steps in place.

 

The premises licence holder stated that to do so would cause significant financial prejudice and would seriously threaten his ability to bring an appeal against the decision to revoke the premises licence. No corroborating financial evidence was provided.

 

The sub-committee decided that the interim steps should both remain in place because the licensing objectives (particularly the prevention of crime and disorder and the promotion of public safety) would not be promoted if the premises commenced trading once again, especially with Mr MacCarthy as DPS. The very real prospect of further breaches of the licence, potentially with similarly dramatic consequences as those which occurred on 25 February 2018, outweighed the financial prejudice which would likely be caused by the maintenance of the interim steps.

 

Again the licensing sub-committee was mindful of the need to reach a decision which was necessary, proportionate and justified on the evidence before them.

 

Appeal rights

 

This decision is open to appeal by either:

 

a)  The applicant for the review

b)  The premises licence holder

c)  Any other person who made relevant representations in relation to the application.

 

Such appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates Court for the area within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by this licensing authority of the decision.

 

This decision does not have effect until either:

 

a)  The end of the period for appealing against this decision

b)  In the event of any notice of appeal being given, until the appeal is disposed of.

 

The interim steps decision is open to appeal by:

 

a)  The chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises is situated; or

b)  The holder of the premises licence

 

Such appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates Court for the area within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by this licensing authority of the decision.