Agenda item

Questions asked by the Sub Committee of the Applicant (Sussex Police)

 

The Sub Committee then asked the following questions of the Applicant:

 

Questions by the Sub Committee	Response (respondent in brackets)
Was the time shown on the CCTV footage for 18 October 2018 correct?	Yes.  The CCTV footage for the incident on 27 April 2018 had shown a two hour time difference.  The issue had been rectified since then and the time shown on the footage for 18 October 2018 was correct (PC Jones)
Was the child present on the CCTV footage the child of a staff member?	Yes, although the staff member was not working at the time and was drinking at the bar (Inspector Lewis)

 

Inspector Lewis advised the Sub Committee that the incident on 18 October 2018 provided further evidence of the lack of management at the premises, the culture within the premises and the level of control within the premises some of the patrons appeared to show.  The CCTV footage of the incident on 18 October 2018 demonstrated that, although the suspect had been excluded from entering any Crawley and Gatwick Business Watch Pub (of which the Moonraker was a member), he had been served by bar staff on the night in question.  Inspector Lewis also highlighted that the child had been on the premises beyond the hours allowed on the conditions of the licence and had not been removed from the premises when the situation escalated.

 

Interested Party (Public Health Department)

 

The representative for West Sussex County Council’s Public Health Department, Holly Yandall addressed the Sub Committee in support of Sussex Police’s application to review the licence and drew the Sub Committee’s attention to the representation she had submitted which was included within the report (Appendix E).

 

Ms Yandall emphasised the impact an assault had on the public health services and cited research by the Trauma Audit Research Network at the University of Manchester which had established that a serious assault, such as the one on 27 April 2018 would amount to a total cost of £20,269 to the health service, ambulance service, Police and the impact on the victim.  Ms Yandall advocated that, had the conditions on the premises licence been adhered to and the licensing objectives promoted, it was unlikely that either of the incidents outlined in the report would have taken place.

 

In addition, Ms Yandall referred to the evidence of the level of drug use on the premises which Sussex Police had submitted as additional evidence (Appendix B to the report).  Specifically, Ms Yandall explained that when alcohol was mixed with cocaine it produced cocaethylene which had been shown to impact an individual’s behaviour by reducing inhibitions and increasing reckless and violent behaviour.

 

Ms Yandall informed the Hearing that she supported the recommended actions and conditions proposed by Sussex Police in its application for review (Appendix A to the report) especially in relation to providing a clear drugs policy, providing the associated training and ensuring that the drugs policy was enforced.  Ms Yandall also urged the Sub Committee to remove Martin Radmall as the Designated Premises Supervisor.  Ms Yandall was of the view that those actions would create a break in the culture of the premises and the present clientele, and would provide a ‘reset’ for the new management.

 

The Council’s Senior Licensing Officer took the opportunity to draw the Sub Committee’s attention to the statement of PC Jones dated 28 August 2018 (Appendix B to the report) which detailed the swab results for controlled substances taken within the premises.  At this point PC Jones provided the Hearing with more information relating to the levels of controlled substances found on various surfaces within the premises.  PC Jones highlighted that a significant number of the surfaces had a result of 4 or above which was classed as a ‘high’ response and was indicative of recent and direct contact with measureable quantities of the narcotic identified by the machine.

 

Questions asked by the Sub Committee of the Interested Party (Public Health Department)

 

The Sub Committee then asked the following questions:

 

Questions by the Sub Committee	Response (respondent in brackets)
The swab results pertaining to the gaming machine and jukebox where above 4 which indicated a ‘high’ response.  PC Jones’ statement dated 28 August 2018 (Appendix B to the report) stated that the image provided by CCTV Camera 2, which covered those areas, was at that time obscured by a number of patio umbrellas that had been placed there for storage.  Was PC Jones of the opinion that the camera had been purposefully covered to hide drug use?   (Question directed to Sussex Police)	Whilst it was a possibility, there was no certainty that was the case (Response provided by PC Jones of Sussex Police)
The CCTV footage for 27 April 2018 showed smoking taking place within the premises.  Why had neither Sussex Police nor the Public Health Department mentioned that in their submissions?	Smoking within the premises was a matter for the local Public Health Department to pursue and was not a Sussex Police matter. Holding a cigarette in their mouth did not necessarily mean that the cigarette was lit, those individuals might have been holding the cigarette in their mouth on the way to the door where the cigarette would be smoked outside the premises (Response provided by PC Jones of Sussex Police)   Holly Yandall acknowledged that when viewing the CCTV footage of 18 October 2018, she had noticed that an individual had lit a cigarette within the premises (Holly Yandall)

 

Premises Licence Holder (Ei Group Plc)

 

Mr Richard Taylor of Gosschalks Solicitors, the representative for Ei Group Plc as the Premises Licence Holder, addressed the Sub Committee and stated that Ei group Plc supported Sussex Police’s application for review and the conditions proposed by Sussex Police.  Mr Taylor advised the Hearing that he acted on the behalf of Ei group Plc and was not there to represent the former Premises Licence Holder Martin Radmall.  Mr Taylor also took the opportunity to remind the Sub Committee that Ei Group Plc had not been the Premises Licence Holder when either of the incidents in question had taken place.

 

Mr Taylor drew the Sub Committee’s attention to the representation submitted on behalf of Ei Group Plc (attached as Appendix D to the report) and he made the following submissions:

·         The vast majority of the licensed premises owned by Ei Group Plc were the subject of lease/tenancy agreements and the tenants operated their own business from the premises.  Therefore, when both the incidents in question took place, Martin Radmall operated the business.

·         Since the application for review had been submitted by Sussex Police, Ei Group Plc had removed Martin Radmall as a tenant and the Premises Licence had been transferred to Ei Group Plc.

·         Martin Radmall had vacated the premises on 30 October 2018 and Ei Group Plc had regained possession of the premises.  The premises had been closed for business as of 31 October 2018.

·         Ei Group Plc were currently seeking to appoint new professional management for the premises, who would operate the premises through the Christmas period.

 

Mr Taylor advised the Sub Committee that since Martin Radmall’s departure from the premises, Mr Taylor had been in discussion with Inspector Lewis regarding Sussex Police’s proposed actions and conditions.  Ei Group Plc wanted to work in partnership with Sussex Police and uphold the licensing objectives, and in light of this and the discussions that had taken place with Sussex Police, Ei Group Plc:

·         Agreed with the conditions proposed by Sussex Police in its application for review (Appendix A to the report).

·         Had removed the pool tables from the premises with no intention of reinstating them.

 

Whilst Ei Group Plc did not object to Sussex Police’s proposal that the licence be suspended for a period of time, Mr Taylor was of the opinion that the minimum eight week period of suspension requested by Sussex Police could have an irreversibly negative effect on the business.  Mr Taylor therefore requested that, should the Sub Committee be minded to suspend the licence, that any such a suspension cease by the 30 November 2018 therefore allowing the premises to reopen on 1 December 2018.  Mr Taylor provided the following reasons for the request:

·         An eight week suspension period would result in the premises closing from the end of November 2018 to the end of January 2019.  If the premises were closed over the Christmas period, the business might never recover.

·         The licensed premises was not a ‘bad pub’, but that the issues which had resulted in the Hearing were due to the premises being poorly operated.  With the right staff and management in place the pub had the potential to be a benefit and not a burden to the local area.

·         Should the premises be allowed to open over the Christmas period, new management would be in place and all staff would be fully trained.

·         A period of closure until 1 December 2018 would (should the Sub Committee be minded to take the relevant action) be sufficient time to:

-   Remove Martin Radmall as the Designated Premises Supervisor.

-   Identify and appoint a new Designated Premises Supervisor who met the approval of Sussex Police.

-   Impose the conditions on the licence proposed by Sussex Police.

 

Mr Taylor, directed the Sub Committee to Paragraph 6.2.7 of the report which referenced associated Paragraph 11.20 of the Section 182 Guidance of the Licensing Act 2003 which stated that, in deciding which powers to invoke, licensing authorities should first seek to establish the cause of the concerns identified by the representations and then direct remedial action at those causes, and such action should be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response to address those causes for concern.  Mr Taylor proposed that the incidents detailed in Sussex Police’s application for review and their additional evidence had been a consequence of Martin Radmall’s lack of management, and that had therefore been the cause of the concerns raised by Sussex Police.  Mr Taylor reminded the Sub Committee that Martin Radmall had now been removed as the Premises Licence Holder and, in Mr Taylor’s opinion, the appropriate and proportionate remedial action would be to also remove him as the Designated Premises Supervisor.

 

Questions asked by the Sub Committee of the Premises Licence Holder (Ei Group Plc)

 

The Sub Committee then asked the following questions of the Premises Licence Holder:

 

Questions by the Sub Committee	Response (respondent in brackets)
What assurances could Ei Group Plc provide that the premises would be run properly in the future?	Ei Group Plc owned approximately 4,000 public houses in England and Wales.  The Plough public house (also along Three Bridges Road) was owned by Ei Group Plc and had good management.  When Martin Radmall had been appointed by Ei Group Plc five/six years ago no information had been found which deemed Martin Radmall to not be a ‘suitable’ appointment.  Although Ei Group Plc could not provide the guarantee being sought by the Sub Committee, it would carry out all the necessary checks when making an appointment for new management (Richard Taylor)
Would Ei Group Plc review the performance of any new management appointed?	Ei Group Plc would closely monitor the new management of the premises.  Ei Group Plc’s Regional Manager would liaise with the new Designated Premises Supervisor, the Council’s Senior Licensing Officer and Sussex Police to ensure that the premises was being well managed.  Any tenancy agreement would be for a minimum period of five years up to a maximum of twenty years – the long term nature of the lease would provide for stability in the new management (Richard Taylor)
Were Ei Group Plc aware of any historical incidents (not detailed within report HCS/09) which had taken place at the premises?	Ei Group Plc was only aware of the instances detailed within report HCS/09 (Richard Taylor)   Ei Group Plc had performed a background check on Martin Radmall before appointing him as management for the premises.  Had anything been highlighted when those pre-application checks had been carried out, Ei Group Plc would have refused to appoint Martin Radmall.  Apart from the incidents which had taken place on 27 April 2018 and 18 October 2018, Ei Group Plc did not have a record of any historical issues relating to the premises (Nicholas Hanlon)   PC Jones informed the Sub Committee that he had been a police officer for 27 years and had worked within Crawley for the past five years.  PC Jones confirmed that a violent incident, in addition to those identified in the report,  had taken place in the past, but that Ei Group Plc would not have been aware of the incident as it had not been the Premises Licence Holder at that time (PC Jones)   The Council’s Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that, the Licensee prior to Martin Radmall had been removed following an altercation which had taken place.  The incident involved personal guests of the then Licence Holder and had occurred out of hours on the premises.  A person had been stabbed with a broken pool cue.  Although Ei Group Plc owned the business at that time, it was not the Premises Licence Holder, the person named on the lease or an interested party at the time of the incident.  The Sub Committee noted that the incident in question was not relevant to the current Hearing (Mike Lyons)

 

 

Final Comments made by the Applicant (Sussex Police)

 

Sussex Police’s Licensing Officer suggested that Ei Group Plc retain the Premises Licence for a minimum of six months which would allow it an increased level of control over the premises.  At this point Mr Taylor, the representative for Ei Group Plc, acknowledged that whilst it was not possible to add Sussex Police’s request as a condition, should Sussex Police support Ei Group Plc’s request that any suspension of the licence be concluded by 1 December 2019, he could provide assurance that Ei Group Plc would remain the Premises Licence Holder for six months.  Mr Hanlon, Regional Manager for Ei Group Plc, added that, as was a requirement of the Pub Code etc Regulations 2016, any new Premises Licence Holder would be made fully aware of any enforcement action taken by the Council in connection with the premises during the previous 2 years.  Ei Group Plc would also ensure that any individual appointed as the Premises Licence Holder was experienced.

 

The Council’s Senior Licensing Officer took the opportunity to remind the Sub Committee that once Ei Group Plc had appointed a new tenant, Ei Group Plc could apply for a transfer of the Premises Licence.  Approval of any such application would be subject to an opportunity for objections being made by Sussex Police and others.  Inspector Lewis added that Sussex Police sought assurance that the any new Premises Licence Holder would be a suitable appointment and able to manage the premises.  Inspector Lewis emphasised the need for the premises to employ effective staff and ensure a change in the clientele following any suspension of the licence.  Mr Taylor advised that some staff members would be retained under the new management, and that all staff would be fully trained and would have a strong manager.

 

PC Jones added that Sussex Police would be happy to work with Ei Group Plc and the new management in conducting swab testing for controlled substances within the premises.

 

Final Comments made by the Premises Licence Holder (Ei Group Plc)

 

Mr Taylor, representative for the Premises Licence Holder, made the following additional comments prior to the Sub Committee’s deliberations:

 

·         Ei Group Plc would appoint new management which met the approval of Sussex Police.  Such new management would have a proven track record of managing ‘difficult’ licensed premises.

·         To assist the ‘resetting’ of the premises, a change in the premises’ name was also an option.

·         Ei Group Plc did not want to own premises which caused problems, as such issues were costly for the business.

 

Clarification Sought by the Legal Clerk

 

The Legal Clerk addressed the Hearing and sought clarification on a number of the conditions proposed by Sussex Police in the application for review (Appendix A to the report):

 

Proposed Condition	Clarification Sought	Response (respondent in brackets)
5 (pool tables)	Acknowledged that the pool tables had been removed.  Should the Sub Committee be minded to agree proposed condition 5, would the Premises Licence Holder have any objection to the tables being permanently removed?	The pool tables had been removed.  Ei Group Plc was happy for that to remain the case (Richard Taylor)   Sussex Police would like the pool tables to be permanently removed (Pauline Giddings)   For the avoidance of doubt, the representative for the Department of Heath requested that, should the Sub Committee be minded to impose the condition, that the wording be amended to also include snooker tables (Holly Yandall)
6 (duty of care policy)	Should the Sub Committee impose proposed condition 6, would the relevant parties present be willing to draft wording for the Sub Committee's consideration outlining the type of information to be included in the Duty of Care Policy?	The representative for Ei Group Plc agreed to draft wording, in consultation with the representatives of Sussex Police and the Department of Health, for the Sub Committee’s consideration (Richard Taylor)   The Duty of Care Policy would relate to the care vulnerable persons (Pauline Giddings)
8 (drugs policy)	Did all relevant parties present have any views on whether condition 3 on the existing licencing (which related to an active drugs policy) to be adequate?	The current wording of condition 3 was deemed adequate (Richard Taylor and Pauline Giddings)
10 (risk assessment)	How frequently did Sussex Police expect the risk assessment to be reviewed?	It was envisaged that the assessment would be reviewed quarterly (Richard Taylor)   The risk assessment was a ‘live’ document.  It was likely to remain unchanged unless an event was expected to alter the type or level of activity within the premises.  In those instances the risk assessment should be reviewed and an additional assessment should be considered (Pauline Giddings)