Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

 

The Metropolitan Police Services representative, the applicant for the review, addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the police.

 

The licensing responsible authority officer, supporting the review, addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the licensing responsible authority officer.

 

A representative for the freeholder of the premises was in attendance.  The advised that they had nothing to say.

 

The premises licence holder addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the premises licence holder.

 

All parties were given up to five minutes for summing up.

 

The meeting adjourned at 2.32pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 3.00pm and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the council’s licensing sub-committee, having considered an application made under Section 53 C of the Licensing Act 2003 by the Metropolitan Police Service for the review of the premises licence issued in respect of the premises known as the George Canning, 123 Grove Lane, London, SE5 8BG and having had regard to all other relevant representations has decided it necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives to: 

 

1.  Reduce the operating hours and the hours permitted for licensable activities as follows:

 

  i.  Premises open to the public :

Monday to Sunday: 07:00 to 00:00

 

  ii.  Sale of alcohol on/off the premises:

Monday to Sunday: 07:00 to 23:30

 

  iii.  Late night refreshment:

Monday to Sunday: 23:00 to 00:00

 

  iv.  Live music:

Monday to Sunday: 11:00 to 23:00

 

Recorded music:

Monday to Sunday: 07:00 to 23:30

 

2.  Modify the conditions of the premises licence by adding the following conditions:

 

  i.  That a CCTV system shall be installed at the premises and be maintained in good working order and be continually recording at all times the premises are in use under the licence. The CCTV system must be capable of capturing a clear facial image of every person who enters the premises.

 

  ii.  That all CCTV footage shall be kept for a period of 31 days and shall on request be made immediately available to officers of the police and the council.

 

  iii.  That a member of staff shall be on duty at all times the premises is open, who is trained in the use of CCTV and able to view and download images to a removable device on the request of the police or a council officer.

 

  iv.  That all staff shall be trained in their responsibilities under the Licensing Act 2003 and training records to be kept and updated every six months and shall, upon request, be made immediately available to officers of the police and the council.

 

  v.  That there shall be an immediate change of management at the premises. Mr Curren shall not be permitted work at the premises.

 

1.  Reasons

 

This was an application by the Metropolitan Police Service to review a premises licence in respect of the premises known as the George Canning, 123 Grove Lane, London SE5 8BG. The application follows the decision of the licensing sub-committee to suspend the premises licence on 3 September 2020 pending the determination of this review.

 

On 3 September 2020, the licensing sub-committee heard evidence of an incident that occurred on Monday 31August 2020 at approximately 02:50.  The police advised that a fight started inside the George Canning during which the victim sustained a broken jaw and was stabbed in the stomach. The premises should have been closed to the public at 00:30 with alcohol ceasing at 00:00. The incident was described as a “lock in” and a number of people present, including witnesses, were customers of the premises. Three suspects were arrested at the premises shortly after this incident, including a member of staff. A witness called the police stating that there was a fight at the pub. Police attended on the original call and spoke to staff at the premises but nothing was disclosed.

 

A further call to the police by a member of the public was made at 03:04. The member of the public told the police that the victim who had been found lying on the pavement just outside the Lettsom Estate, Camberwell Grove, London SE5. The informant was woken by the victim calling for help, shouting that he had been stabbed. The victim stated that this had occurred inside the George Canning. Police attended the premises and found the manager in an alley next to it. The police requested to view the premises CCTV of the incident. The manager initially denied being able to show the officers the CCTV but later admitted that he could and led the police to the office to view the footage. The manager was described as being intoxicated, his speech was slurred and he appeared unsteady on his feet. The police entered the kitchen area of the pub and found two suspects hiding in the darkness, both were arrested on suspicion of assault.

 

CCTV was subsequently viewed and seized by the police which showed an incident at 02:20 hours when a female, the girlfriend of the victim, assaulted him. She was also one of the suspects arrested. Then between 02:50 and 03:00 it shows a melee; the victim punched a suspect, three people then dragged him to the ground. The victim is then seen emerging from the premises with a blood stained top. The weapon was not located at the premises and is believed to have been disposed of prior to police arrival.

 

The sub-committee further heard that neither the licence holder, designated premises supervisor (DPS) nor the manager were working at the premises on the evening of the incident. When police attended the premises, it was noted that members of staff had cleaned the scene meaning the loss of forensic evidence. The manager who was said to not be on duty at the time of the incident was intoxicated and it is believed complicit in trying to cover up the incident and/or at least provide a place for two suspects to hide from the police. Finally there was a link between the licencee for the George Canning and the old Charlie Chaplin public house, which had been reviewed in 2017. The Charlie Chaplin was subject to an expedited review when two intoxicated males were stabbed, and the landlord was described as inebriated at the time.

 

At the full hearing on 24 September 2020, the sub-committee heard from the police representative who considered that poor decisions had been made by the manager of the premises at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the DPS worked in lots of premises, primarily remotely which was insufficient. The police representative had since met with the premises licence holder who had removed the manager and ensured a new DPS was in place who would also act as a manager.

 

The police met with the DPS and conducted background checks; she had a long history of working within public houses and raised no concerns. She would be on site the majority of the time, alleviating many of the police concerns with the management structure. They considered the premises licence holder to be fully cooperative and willing to put conditions in place to avoid such an incident happening again. They viewed the incident at the Charlie Chaplin in the bigger picture; it did not occur outside of operating hours and, with both incidents, the licence holder gave their full compliance and cooperation. The police asked the sub-committee to modify the conditions of the premises licence rather than revoke it.

 

The sub-committee then heard from a representative of the licensing authority. They advised that they did not have confidence in the management of the premises to run it effectively, especially considering they had been involved in two incidents that had led to reviews. They considered there was a lack of control and people were in the premises after hours. At the Charlie Chaplin a knife had been taken from behind the bar and someone had been stabbed, this incident was similar. They questioned why it would be any different should the premises licence continue and how the committee would know any new policies would be adhered to.

 

Lastly the sub-committee heard from the premises licence holder, Donal Ennis. In addressing the incident at the Charlie Chaplin, he stated it was a very unfortunate incident and no further issues arose thereafter. He considered the premises to be very different, in different areas and in different circumstances. He suggested it was unfair for it to impact upon the licence of the George Canning. Turning to the incident, giving rise to the review, he explained that managers are given strict guidelines and that he does not promote or allow any out of hours drinking. He stated that the incident would not have happened if the premises had closed on time and the manager did what he was trained to do. He stated that he runs 17 pubs and training is maintained in all premises.

 

Mr Ennis was keen to impress upon the sub-committee that the way the premises had been managed the night of the incident was not in line with the way his pubs are run. The manager handled the incident very badly and acted outside of all training, guidance and policies he had been given. Even if the police had not wanted the manager removed, he would have been anyway. Aside from the incident, Mr Ennis has been the premises licence holder of the George Canning for eight and a half years without any other issues. He advised that he did not consider it a problematic pub and would be putting in a new team. There will now be a new DPS who will also manage the premises.

 

The sub-committee carefully considered both the oral and written evidence submitted and agreed with representations given by the police. The incident seems to have arisen as a result of poor management: one DPS for several premises who operates remotely is not sufficient, furthermore the management structure was weak and it was difficult to determine who was in charge at the time of the incident. Since the incident, Mr Ennis had been proactive in replacing the DPS and manager.

 

The sub-committee considered that Mr Ennis was genuine in expressing his willingness to address the problems with the George Canning and felt confident the conditions agreed between the police and Mr Ennis were necessary to facilitate this and uphold the four licensing objectives. The sub-committee recommend the premises ensure there is a clear line of management and that ongoing training is provided.

 

In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate. 

 

2.  Appeal rights

 

This decision is open to appeal by either:

 

a)  The applicant for the review

b)  The applicant to vary the premises licence supervisor

c)  The premises licence holder

d)  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; or

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

 

 

 

 

4.  Review of interim steps pending appeal

At the conclusion of the review hearing the licensing sub-committee reviewed the interim steps to determine which interim steps were appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives, pursuant to section 53D of the Licensing Act 2003. The sub-committee concluded that these interim steps were appropriate:

 

To withdraw the interim step to suspend the premises licence.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee were satisfied that these modified interim steps are more appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives to modify the interim steps, as detailed above

 

The interim steps are 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.