Agenda item
Application for Summary Review of the Premises Licence, The Hop and Rye, 4 Wainscott Road, Wainscott, Kent, ME2 4LB
An application has been received from Superintendent Hine, on behalf of the Chief Officer of Kent Police, for an Expedited Review of the premises licence at The Hop and Rye, 4 Wainscott Road, Wainscott, Kent, ME2 4LB, as the premises has been associated with serious crime.
Interim steps were agreed at a hearing held on 4 December 2020 where it was determined that the premises licence for The Hop and Rye be suspended, pending the full review hearing.
Minutes:
Discussion:
The Licensing Manager outlined the matter before the Panel. She stated that, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application for an expedited (summary) review from Kent Police in relation to the premises licence for the Hop and Rye, 4 Wainscott Road, Wainscott, Kent ME2 4LB, 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. At a hearing held on 4 December 2020, the Licensing Hearing Panel had determined that the premises licence be suspended, pending a full review hearing within 28 days which was now the matter before the Panel.
The Licensing Manager explained that the steps the Panel may take were:
• The modification of the conditions of the premises licence;
• The exclusion of licensable activities from the scope of the licence;
• The removal of the designated premises supervisor from the licence;
• The suspension of the licence;
• The revocation the licence.
The following documents were included in the agenda packs: -
Main agenda:
Appendix A - pages 41 to 42, the certificate from Kent Police.
Appendix B - pages 43 to 47, the application for summary review.
Appendix C - pages 49 to 54, decision of the Licensing Hearing Panel held on 4 December 2020 to agree interim steps.
Appendix D - pages 55 to 60, the Premises Licence for the Hop and Rye.
Appendix E - pages 61 to 105, representations in support of the premises.
Supplementary Agenda No. 1:
Appendix E - pages 3 to 13, further representations in support of the premises.
Appendix F - pages 15 to 18, the representation from the Director of Public Health in support of the application to review the premises licence.
Appendix G - page 19, a response from Mr Greenfield to Appendix F.
Appendix H - pages 21 to 34, the application for a review of the premises licence from Kent Police.
Supplementary Agenda No. 2:
Appendix I - pages 3 to 5, further representations in support of the premises.
Supplementary Agenda No. 3:
Appendix J - pages 3 to 11, further representations in support of the premises.
In introducing the application from Kent Police for a review of the premises licence, PC Hunt explained that it had been made in response to the failure of the premises to adhere to the emergency measures introduced to control the Covid-19 pandemic. He asked the Panel to consider the application in the context of the unprecedented steps taken by the Government to protect its citizens. He outlined the chronology of these steps, from the first national lockdown on 23 March 2020 to the introduction of the Tier system which had seen Medway enter Tier 4 on 20 December having experienced one of the highest infection rates in the country.
PC Hunt outlined in detail a specific incident that had occurred on Friday 27 November, during a second period of national lockdown when pubs had only been permitted to open for off sales. He explained that he and PC Hill had been passing the premises at 20.15 hours and had noticed lights on in the rear bar area. On being allowed through to this area by the Premises Licence Holder (PLH), Mr Knight, they had witnessed what appeared to be a ‘lock-in’. In addition to Mr Knight, six persons were present drinking alcohol. One was the co-owner of the premises, Mr Wilson. The premises were then closed and only PC Hunt, PC Hill, Mr Knight and Mr Wilson remained. PC Hunt stated that Mr Wilson had appeared to be intoxicated and had become argumentative.
PC Hunt explained that the CCTV hard drive had been seized from the premises and a full forensic download and review of its content had been undertaken. This had revealed multiple ‘lock-in’ events during the period of the second national lockdown. In addition, it had shown incidents when the premises had been permitted to be open to customers, where there had been very little regard for the regulations that had been put in place. These included more than six people being present; facemasks not being worn when required; and drinks being purchased at the bar. PC Hunt recalled that, at the expedited hearing the co-owner of the premises, Mr Greenfield, had said he was unaware of these incidents and had placed the blame on Mr Wilson, not Mr Knight as the PLH. Mr Knight had said that he had felt pressurised and intimidated by Mr Wilson. PC Hunt added that Mr Greenfield had explained that Mr Wilson was no longer his business partner and that it was intended for Mr Knight to become the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). PC Hunt asked that he be permitted to show extracts from the CCTV footage which demonstrated that Mr Knight had been present, and had in effect been acting as the DPS, during the recorded incidents where the regulations were not adhered to.
The Panel resolved to exclude the press and public from the meeting to enable the CCTV footage to be shown.
In showing the CCTV footage, PC Hill explained the various extracts in detail, which related to different events that had occurred on identified days in late November 2020. Recorded incidents included customers being allowed into the rear bar; sales being made by Mr Knight to customers at the bar; the sharing of pool cues; face masks not being worn when required; and no social distancing. PC Hill referred to footage of Mr Knight playing pool with Mr Wilson and observed that he did not appear to be under any duress. PC Hill also showed footage of an event that had occurred in late October 2020, when the premises were permitted to be open, where the regulations in place at the time had not been followed. He advised the Panel that there were several examples of this.
The meeting moved back into public session and PC Hunt resumed his presentation of the application for review by Kent Police by calling Ian Gilmore of Medway Trading Standards as a witness. At the request of PC Hunt, Mr Gilmore advised the Panel that Trading Standards Officers had attended the premises on 25 May 2020 to give guidance on the outside seating area, which had subsequently been quickly removed as required. On 29 September 2020, during a check of all premises, the Hop and Rye was found not to be displaying a QR code, so one was left together with guidance. Mr Gilmore explained that Mr Greenfield had subsequently contacted him, and they had discussed the requirement for the premises to only operate a takeaway service. Mr Gilmore concluded by saying that he had been shocked by the incidents that had been shown on the CCTV footage.
Following questioning, Mr Gilmore left the meeting.
PC Hunt continued by stating that all premises were expected to enforce the rules and act appropriately. However, the CCTV footage had revealed little evidence of this by the Hop and Rye which had been highly uncompliant. He added that elderly people were known to be at greater risk of harm from Covid-19 and yet many of the letters of support for the premises had stated that this was a popular venue for elderly people. One of the letters had been from a customer known to have been present at three of the ‘lock-in’ events. PC Hunt also referred to a character reference of Mr Greenfield that had been submitted and stated that Mr Greenfield was neither the PLH, who was Mr Knight, or the DPS. He noted that the DPS named on the premises licence was a Mr Richards, who appeared to have no involvement in the management of the premises.
In conclusion, PC Hunt said that Kent Police had no confidence in the premises, where there had been a blatant disregard for the regulations. The removal of Mr Wilson as co-owner did not alleviate these concerns as Mr Knight was not considered to be a responsible PLH. PC Hunt added that Kent Police would make representations against an application for Mr Knight to become the DPS. It was the opinion of Kent Police that the CCTV footage did not show Mr Knight being intimidated by Mr Wilson. Kent Police were seeking the revocation of the premises licence as they had no faith in the ability of the premises to adhere to any conditions imposed by the Panel.
Next, Barbara Murray introduced the representations submitted by the Director of Public Health in support of the application by Kent Police for a review of the premises licence. She stated that her evidence was to give the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. Mrs Murray referred to the Covid-19 infection rate in Medway which was among the highest in the country and had led to it being placed in Tier 4. She emphasised that the risk of infection increased with age and that those over 70 years old were considered to be clinically vulnerable, noting that Mr Greenfield and those who supported him had referred to the elderly customers of the premises. Mrs Murray concluded by stating that the Covid-19 legislation was very clear and had been extensively advertised.
The Chairman invited those representing the premises to question the representatives of Kent Police or Public Health. Mr Greenfield stated that he had sought the assistance of Trading Standards and questioned any suggestion that the premises had broken their rules. He also stated that Mr Wilson had been present on all the occasions referred to by Kent Police except two and had influenced Mr Knight. Mr Greenfield referred to his submissions and questioned why car cleaning establishments were allowed to continue to operate. On the latter point PC Hill responded that Trading Standards would take the lead in such matters, and Kent Police would share any information with partners. It was the responsibility of all premises to uphold the regulations that were in place.
In response to a question from a member of the Panel, PC Hill confirmed that investigations into the events recorded on the CCTV were ongoing.
The Chairman invited Mr Greenfield to respond to the application for a review of the premises licence by Kent Police. He stated that, of the nine breaches referred to by the police, during one incident only a member of staff had been present and during another, only an elderly gentleman on a mobility scooter had been present. He advised that the premises had been operating for three and a half years without any mistakes but that since the start of the pandemic, mistakes had been made at every level from the Government down with regulations changing on a daily basis. He explained that he had been out of the country until 28 November 2020 and had been devastated when PC Hunt had told him what had happened. He reiterated his view that Mr Wilson had taken advantage of Mr Knight and that he had since severed all links with Mr Wilson. He confirmed that he had full confidence in Mr Knight and wished him to remain as PLH and become the DPS.
Mr Greenfield referred to the letters of support he had submitted and hoped that the Panel would take these into account. He advised that all the people involved in the incidents had taken a Covid-19 test which had been negative.
Mr Marriott, on behalf of the Licenced Victuallers Association, explained the association’s role in assisting businesses. He said that he had known Mr Greenfield for 35 years and that he agreed with the good character reference that had been given. He noted that both Mr Greenfield and Mr Knight had made early admissions of the incidents and had fully co-operated with the police. He also noted Mr Greenfield’s comments that Mr Knight’s actions had been out of character and that he had been put under pressure from Mr Wilson. Referring to the number of public houses that had closed since 2000, he asked the Panel to consider alternatives to revocation of the licence, such as a fine, conditions or suspension.
PC Hunt questioned Mr Knight who advised that he had challenged Mr Wilson on a number of occasions, but this was not apparent on the CCTV footage. He said that he had not advised Mr Greenfield of the situation as he did not want to disturb him whilst he was dealing with family issues in France. With reference to the two recorded incidents when Mr Wilson had not been present when he had served customers, Mr Knight said that on both occasions only one person had been present. The first was when he had served an elderly gentleman who had come in to buy a takeaway and he did not consider any harm had been done. The second involved a lady who did some cleaning work at the pub. On the evidence of the CCTV footage, PC Hill questioned Mr Knight’s assertion that she had been working on the day in question.
Members of the Panel questioned Mr Knight on the incidents shown on the CCTV footage. Mr Knight stated that he had allowed a customer to enter the back room because he had been invited by Mr Wilson. When asked how he would act in the future, Mr Knight said that he would be a lot firmer without Mr Wilson’s involvement and would apply any restriction placed on the premises.
In response to a question about his involvement in the business, Mr Greenfield explained how he had created the business and how he was involved in the purchasing of stock and acquiring pieces for the premises from his boot fairs. Asked why Mr Wilson had not appeared at the expedited review hearing, Mr Greenfield said that he no longer wished to be associated with him. Mr Greenfield was asked to confirm that, having watched the CCTV footage, he continued to have confidence in Mr Knight. Mr Greenfield responded that Mr Knight retained his full confidence.
Summing up on behalf of Kent Police, PC Hill expressed the view that the premises licence had been mismanaged as it stated the name of a DPS who had no involvement in the business. Therefore, in effect there had been no DPS. In addition, Mr Knight was not considered by Kent Police to be sufficiently robust to be the PLH. PC Hill advised the Panel that he had watched many hours of CCTV footage from the premises and he had been unable to find any instances of Mr Wilson placing Mr Knight under duress. It was the opinion of Kent Police that, with Mr Knight as the PLH, the premises had failed to uphold either the Licensing Objectives or the Covid-19 regulations.
Outlining the options available to the Panel, PC Hill stated the view of Kent Police that removing the DPS would have no effect as the named DPS had never been in a position of control at the premises. Modifying the conditions on the premises licence would not be effective as Mr Knight had shown that he could breach conditions and regulations. Suspension of the licence for a period of 3 months might have little impact on the business due to the current Covid-19 restrictions. Although it could stop off-sales, Kent Police would not be confident that it would stop the illegal activity that had taken place at the premises. Kent Police were therefore seeking revocation of the premises licence as the involvement of Mr Knight as PLH remained their biggest concern and he retained the confidence of Mr Greenfield.
Summing up on behalf of the Director of Public Health, Barbara Murray agreed with Kent Police that Mr Knight had failed to promote the four Licensing Objectives which may have resulted in a serious public health risk. She concluded that the Director requested that the Panel consider revocation in this instance.
Finally, Mr Greenfield summed up by repeating his view that the operation of car cleaning establishments posed a greater public health risk than the incidents at the Hop and Rye. He explained the circumstances which had led to Mr Richards being named as the DPS. It had been discovered at a late stage that Mr Knight’s personal licence needed to be renewed and so Mr Richards had stepped in to allow the premises to open. Mr Greenfield explained that it was always the intention for Mr Knight to be the DPS.
The Panel resolved to exclude the press and public from the meeting during the Panel’s deliberations and decision making.
Decision:
- In considering the application for a review of the premises licence for the Hop and Rye, 4 Wainscott Road, Wainscott, Kent, ME2 4LB, 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, including written and oral evidence and the CCTV footage shown at the hearing.
- In light of the Panel’s lack of confidence in the ability of the current management, specifically Mr Knight as the Premises Licence Holder, to manage the premises safely in the accordance with the Licensing Objectives and licensing and Covid-19 legislation, the Panel unanimously agreed to revoke the premises licence.
- The Panel also unanimously agreed that the interim steps imposed by the Licensing Hearing Panel on 4 December 2020, would remain in place until the decision of the Panel took effect.
Supporting documents:
- Guidelines, item 576. PDF 8 KB
- Report, item 576. PDF 215 KB
- Appendix A, item 576. PDF 128 KB
- Appendix B, item 576. PDF 187 KB
- Appendix C, item 576. PDF 153 KB
- Appendix D, item 576. PDF 677 KB
- Appendix E, item 576. PDF 1 MB
- Appendix E1, item 576. PDF 80 KB
- Appendix E2, item 576. PDF 750 KB
- Appendix E3, item 576. PDF 478 KB
- Appendix E4, item 576. PDF 393 KB
- Appendix E5, item 576. PDF 731 KB
- Appendix E6, item 576. PDF 558 KB
- Appendix E7, item 576. PDF 467 KB
- Appendix E8, item 576. PDF 670 KB
- Appendix E9, item 576. PDF 423 KB
- Appendix E10, item 576. PDF 722 KB
- Appendix E11, item 576. PDF 691 KB
- Appendix E 12, item 576. PDF 1 MB
- Appendix E 13, item 576. PDF 760 KB
- Appendix E 14, item 576. PDF 906 KB
- Appendix E 15, item 576. PDF 619 KB
- Appendix E 16, item 576. PDF 826 KB
- Appendix E 17, item 576. PDF 876 KB
- Appendix E18, item 576. PDF 83 KB
- Appendix F, item 576. PDF 257 KB
- Appendix G, item 576. PDF 102 KB
- Appendix H 1, item 576. PDF 118 KB
- Appendix H 2, item 576. PDF 74 KB
- Appendix I, item 576. PDF 759 KB
- Appendix I 2, item 576. PDF 44 KB
- Appendix J1, item 576. PDF 1 MB
- Appendix J2, item 576. PDF 2 MB
- Appendix J3, item 576. PDF 797 KB