Agenda item

To consider an application for the review of the Premises Licence for West Green Pool Bar, 428 West Green Road London N15.

Licensing Officer

Prior to introducing the report, Ms Daliah Barrett, Licensing Officer, informed the Committee that the Premises License Holder had been invited to attend the hearing but was not present.

The Licensing Officer introduced the application for the review of the Premises Licence for West Green Pool Bar, 428 West Green Road London N15. It was noted Mr Huseyin Karakas held the Premises Licence. The Applicant of the review was the Metropolitan Police who had claimed the operation of the premises had failed to uphold the licensing conditions and the licensing objectives, namely the prevention of crime and disorder, and the prevention of public nuisance. The Committee were taken through the report as set out at pages 153 to 156.

Regarding a question from the Committee on the Closure Order imposed on the premises, the Metropolitan Police confirmed the premises had been closed from 30^th October to 31^st January. It was a criminal offence for the premises to be entered unless the License Holder had good reason to enter and had informed the Court.

Applicant – Metropolitan Police

Mr Mark Greaves, the Police representative, outlined the application for review as set out at pages 159 to 161. Mr Greaves also took the Committee through the appendices, including the Application for Closure Order prepared by PC Ben Boulter at pages 163 to 164. 

Questions

The Committee next raised questions in relation to the submissions. The following was noted:

• In response to a query, the Licensing Officer explained that failure to pay a licence fee could only result in the suspension of a licence. The system used by the Council, called M3, generated invoice worksheets for one missed year; however, the system was unable to pick up unpaid invoices for following years. Generally, further to an issuance of a suspension letter, a follow up visit would be carried out. In relation to this premises, an officer had previously visited the premises but was unable to gain access. Furthermore, the computer system failed to generate further invoices, which resulted in an oversight of the premises by the Council. It was further noted, that even though police had visited the premises separately, the premises had not been flagged up to the Council. The Licensing Officer acknowledged that joint up with police would be required to prevent such premises going under the radar.
• The Licensing Officer informed the Committee that all premises used to be on a risk-rating, thus premises were visited frequently if required, for instance within a 6 month or 18-month period. However, due to a shortage of resources in the last few years, issues of payment of licence fees were not picked up as it used to be. The Licensing Officer assured the Committee that this issue had been flagged up.
• In response to a query, the Licensing Officer explained that legislation was reliant on the Licence Holder or DPS informing the Responsible Authority that they were no longer at the premises. Unfortunately, most of the time the only way the Responsible Authority discover the absence of a Licence Holder or DPS was when officers visit premises.
• The Licensing Officer noted that premises were required to have their summary licence on display, which names the Licence Holder and DPS. In relation to this particular case, there were instances in the past whereby officers were unable to gain access into the premises, and a period of time when the premises was left abandoned, thus the premises was closed off for a while on the Council’s computer system. 
• The Licensing Officer informed that at this stage it would be irrelevant to delve into whether alcohol was sold at the premises because the licence had been suspended. The Licensing Officer noted that the matter at hand for the Committee was whether the licence should be revoked.
• Regarding a query around sub-letting, the Licensing Officer informed that during a visit to a premises, should an officer be provided with a different name to what was stated on a licence,  the officer would contact the named individual on a licence to obtain confirmation that there were still the Licence Holder. The Licensing Officer noted that when Mr Karakas was contacted by the Responsible Authority a few years ago, he confirmed that he was still the Licence Holder and there had been no changes. 
• Responding to a query, the Licensing Officer explained that any individual that would require a licence for the premises would need to commence a new licensing application should the licence be revoked. A revocation of a licence for the current Licence Holder would result in the loss of an in-tact secured licence. It would be more valuable to lease out the premises with an in-tact licence than without a licence.

Closing Submissions

In closing, the Metropolitan Police reiterated to the Committee their concerns over the management of the venue.

DECISION

The Licensing Sub Committee (LSC) carefully considered the review application and representations put before it, the Council’s statement of licensing policy, the Licensing Act 2003, and the section 182 Licensing Act 2003 guidance.

In light of the evidence it heard, the LSC decided it was appropriate and proportionate to revoke the licence. 

Reasons

Having heard evidence from the Police, the Committee was satisfied that there had been a failure on the part of the licence holder to promote and uphold the licensing objectives relating to public nuisance and crime and disorder.

The evidence put before the Committee in connection with criminal activity was particularly serious.  The premises had been the subject of a closure order following execution of a warrant pursuant to section 23 (3) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.  Evidence of the sale and supply of drugs was found at the premises and the committee took the view that it would be inappropriate for the premises to be permitted to continue operating.

The Committee noted with some concern that the License Holder had not been engaged in the operation of the premises for some considerable time and had not been in a position to address the crime and disorder that was taking place at the premises.

The Committee was satisfied that it had heard credible evidence regarding incidents of Crime and Disorder and was concerned at the effect that drug dealing at the premises would have on locals going about their normal business.

The crime and disorder linked to the premises was so grave that the Committee decided it was appropriate to revoke the licence, as complete revocation of the licence was the only measure that could ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives, in particular for the prevention of crime and disorder.

The Committee only made its decision after considering all the evidence and was satisfied that revocation of the licence was an appropriate and proportionate response to the matters that were put before it.

Appeal Rights

This decision is open to appeal to the Magistrates Court within the period of 21 days beginning on the day upon which the appellant is notified of the decision. This decision does not take effect until the end of the appeal period or, in the event that an appeal has been lodged, until the appeal is dispensed with.