An application has been received from Kent Police for an Expedited Review of the premises licence at Fleur De Lis, 46 Gillingham Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4RR. The Act requires expedited premises licence review applications to be considered within 48 hours, pending a full hearing of the issues within 28 days of the date that the application was served.
Minutes:
The Chairman asked the Licensing Manager to outline the matter before the Panel. The Licensing Manager stated that, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application for an expedited review from Kent Police in relation to the premises licence for Fleur De Lis, 46 Gillingham Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4RR, as the premises had been associated with serious crime and disorder. She explained that the Licensing Act 2003 required expedited premises licence review applications to be considered within 48 hours, pending a full review hearing within 28 days of the date that the application was served.
The Licensing Manager stated that the purpose of the hearing was for the Panel to determine what interim steps to take, pending the full review hearing, and explained that the options were:
(a) the modification of the conditions of the premises licence;
(b) the exclusion of the sale of alcohol by retail from the scope of the licence;
(c) the removal of the designated premises supervisor from the licence;
(d) the suspension of the licence.
The following documents were included in the main agenda pack: -
PC Hill explained that an incident of serious crime and disorder had occurred at the premises on Sunday 19 July for which there was an ongoing investigation. Two offences were being investigated in relation to the incident, the first being an assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) and the second more serious assault occasioning grievous bodily harm (GBH). In addition, the crime scene had been cleaned by staff at the premises following the incidents.
The Panel was shown CCTV footage of the two incidents. PC Hill confirmed that there was an ongoing criminal investigation into the assaults. Based primarily on what had occurred during these incidents, Kent Police were concerned that other incidents could be occurring at the pub and not being reported. The Police were therefore seeking suspension of the premises license for 28 days pending a full review of the licence. It was not considered that modification of the conditions of the premises licence would be sufficient to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. It was also considered that the removal of the designated premises supervisor from the licence would not be sufficient as it would effectively still be the same people running the premises.
Mr Smith, the Premises Licence Holder, questioned the Police representatives to ask why no statements had been taken by the Police on the day of the incidents. PC Cosser advised that witnesses at the scene had said that no incident had taken place and therefore, witness statements had not been taken. PC Hill confirmed this statement.
In response to questions from members of the Panel, the Police advised that there had been a previous incident at the Fleur De Lis on 4 July. The Police had not been called but there had been a fight outside the pub. There had been a further disturbance on the evening of 4 July. Mr Smith had been advised by the Police to consider closing the premises with Mr Smith having declined to do so. Later that evening, PC Hill had to attend due to there being a disturbance at the premises. A further request was made for the pub to close with Mr Smith’s daughter having complied with this request. There had been no serious disorder previously at the Fleur De Lis but there had been some isolated incidents, particularly on match days at Gillingham FC.
Mr Smith said that, with hindsight, he wished that he had acted differently in relation to the incidents at his premises but that he had been concerned for his safety as one year previously he had intervened in an incident outside the premises and been assaulted as a result.
Mr Smith advised the Committee that the lady seen in the video cleaning the bar area after the incidents on 19 July was a customer rather than a member of staff. The two assault victims had been banned from the pub. The perpetrator would also be banned although as his identity was not known, it had not been possible to advise him of this.
The incidents had been isolated and there had not been any previous trouble regularly associated with the premises. The prospect of being shut down for a first offence, after 31 years of trade, was hard to accept. It would result in bankruptcy for Mr Smith and four staff would lose their jobs. In relation to the disturbance on 4 July, Mr Smith said that the premises had already stopped serving ahead of PC Hill having attended.
There being no questions from the representatives of the Police, Mr Smith responded to questions from Panel Members, Mr Smith said that he only knew the first name of the perpetrator. There had not been any other serious incidents in the premises in the last year and cost of employing security staff would be prohibitive. The lady who had cleaned the bar area after the incidents had obtained the cleaning materials from the end of the bar. Following the first incident, Mr Smith had shouted to the perpetrator, from behind the bar, to tell him that he needed to leave. However, Mr Smith had been told by a number of customers that the victim had started the fight and Mr Smith was concerned that the victim of the first assault may still be in the vicinity of the premises. The victim of the second assault had insisted that he did not want the Police to be involved and that he had fallen over.
In response to further questions from the Panel Members, Mr Smith stated that the licensed hours for the Fleur De Lis were 11:00 to 23:30 Sunday to Thursday and 11:00 to 00:30 on Friday and Saturday, but that the premises had been closing slightly earlier than this. The pub did not serve any food with one member of bar staff working each shift. A risk assessment had been undertaken ahead of the re-opening of the premises following Covid-19 and customer details were taken for the NHS Track and Trace scheme. The staff had not had specific incident training but knew to call Mr Smith in the event of an incident. If he was not available, then the staff member would call the Police. The Fleur De Lis kept a record of people who had been banned from the premises. Details of incidents were not recorded with CCTV being relied upon as an alternative. The victim of the second assault had insisted that they did not want Police involvement. Mr and Mrs Smith regretted that they had not initially been honest with the Police about the incidents.
The Chairman asked both parties if they wished to sum up.Mr Smith said that he felt that the premises complied with the licensing objectives and that he was reluctant to involve the Police in matters unless it was necessary.
In response to further questions from the Panel, Mr Smith said he had only seen the CCTV footage of the incidents for the first time when the Police had asked to see it. There was a possibility that information collected for NHS Track and Trace would help to identify the perpetrator of the offences.
Summing up, PC Hill confirmed that the expedited review of the premises licence of the Fleur De Lis had been requested due a serious incident of crime and disorder associated with the pub. Case law from 2015 demonstrated that a premises could be deemed to be associated with serious crime and disorder based upon a single incident. It was extremely concerning to the Police that no staff or customers present at the premises had intervened during the incident. The licensing objectives that were particularly relevant to this incident were the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. These had not been upheld. The cleaning products that had been used following the second incident had been handed over the bar rather than having been picked up. It was accepted that staff had been frightened during the incidents but the Police were concerned that there could be further crime and disorder associated with the premises. Kent Police were therefore seeking suspension of the premises licence pending a full hearing. During the interim period, the Police were willing to work with the licensees to look at how the issues highlighted could be addressed.
Decision:
1. In considering the application for an expedited review of the premises licence for Fleur De Lis, 46 Gillingham Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4RR, the Licensing Hearing Panel had regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under S182 of the Act, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and all matters before it, both written and oral.
2. In light of the seriousness of the incidents that had occurred at the premises on 19 July 2020, the risk of further incidents and the concerns expressed by the representatives of Kent Police regarding how the licensees of the premises had responded to the incidents, the Panel suspended the premises licence for a period of up to 28 days, pending a full review hearing.
Supporting documents: