Agenda item

Exempt annexes to agenda item 4

The Committee took representations from both parties concerning the nature of evidence submitted as exempt and whether or not the committee should consider it. The respondent stated that as some of the evidence concerned an ongoing investigation then it was therefore sub-judice and should not be considered. This included some video evidence submitted by the Police.

The Committee agreed that it would adjourn to consider legal advice and that the meeting would reconvene the following day

The meeting was adjourned at 8.45pm and was reconvened at 6.30pm on the 8 October 2020.

On reconvening the parties were invited to submit their views on the submission and consideration of evidence

Committee informed parties of its decision concerning evidence submitted as exempt. The Committee retired to consider submissions from parties and written legal advice.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:45pm and was reconvened at 7pm

Upon returning to the meeting the Chairman announced that the evidence submitted by the applicant, however there would be no viewing of the submitted video as the committee had a written transcript detailing what had happened.

Questions

Members asked questions in relation to the operation of body worn cameras  the status of new companies and disagreements as to whether a patron had been removed from the premises or had been refused entry. Members were told that body worn cameras did not operate fully on all of the time and that they were set to standby and turned on when needed. This meant that sometimes an incident would be missed due to SIA door staff not having time to turn their cameras on if an incident was immediately pressing.

The respondent questioned the applicant on incidents detailed within the application and was questioned by the applicant of matters within the respondents submission

Summing up of the applicant

The applicant’s representative summed up which is summarised as follows:

·         There had been no harassment of the licence holder;

·         The Police had taken a staged approach to enforcement;

·         The fact that no further action had been taken concerning the incidents was a misreading of the incidents and the incidents showed the failure of the premises;

·         The premises had been involved with in incidents just four months following the previous review and the management of the premises demonstrated irresponsibility;

·         Excessive levels of drunkenness were demonstrated at the premises;

·         The premises had demonstrated obstructive behaviour when asked to provide CCTV footage;

·         The fact that body worn cameras had not been turned on at all times was not an irrelevant issue;

·         The respondent had claimed that the incident in March had involved someone being refused entry when there was evidence to show that he had been ejected from the premises;

·         The most recent incident had demonstrated a number of failings with the premises;

·         Recent incidents had demonstrated that the premises was being mismanaged

Summing up of the respondent

The respondent’s representative made a submission which is summarised as follows:

·         Matters set out in the application by the police had led to no further action

·         In 2018 there had been but two incidents

·         Police had stated in relation to ne incident that the police had been called by a member of the public when in fact the premises had contacted the police which demonstrated the responsible nature of the premises;

·         Police had visited the premises numerous times and found no issues which they had failed to report in their application which demonstrated a lack of transparency;

·         The premises had over 42k patrons per year;

·         The police were factually incorrect when they had claimed that an incident had been caused by someone kicked out of the premises when in fact he had been refused entry;

·         The applicant felt that there had been a certain degree of harassment from the police

 The licensing Committee adjourned to make a decision and informed the meeting that the decision would be sent to all parties within five working days

In reaching its decision the Licensing Committee has given due regard to the following:

·         The Statutory licensing objectives

·         Worthing Borough Councils Statement of Licensing Policy

·         Guidance issued under Section 182 by the Home Secretary

·         The Application, written/oral representations made at the hearing and inwriting

·         The Committee also gave regard to human rights legislation and the rules of

·         natural justice

In discharging its functions the Committee did so with a view to promoting the Licensing Objectives, the relevant objectives here were the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public safety.

Resolved: To take no action

Reasons for decision: The Licensing Committee considered all the relevant evidence in this matter and were not satisfied that that Licensing Objectives of Crime and Disorder and Public Safety were being undermined by the Licence Holder. They do not consider that the evidence before them was proportionate to take any action given the minor nature of any failures.

The Licensing Committee would recommend that body worn video training and ID checker scanner training is undertaken regularly to remind staff of the importance of using it in all circumstances to ensure that the licensing objectives continue to be Upheld.

The Licensing Committee would encourage the police and the licence holder to liaise regularly to work together to uphold and promote the licensing objectives.