Agenda item

To consider report HCS/15of the Head of Community Services.

 

Councillors are asked to bring the Licensing Handbook to the meeting, which has been circulated with the agenda.

The Sub-Committee considered an application to review the Premises Licence held in respect of Déjà Vu Bar, 26-32 High Street, Crawley (Northgate and West Green Ward).

 

Following the introduction of those present, the Senior Lawyer outlined the procedure for the hearing.  The Senior Lawyer informed all parties that the Sub Committee had requested a pre-meeting with the Senior Lawyer and Democratic Services Officer prior to the commencement of the Sub-Committee, to confirm the procedure that would be followed during the hearing.  It was confirmed that the Sub-Committee had not asked for clarification of any aspect of the application or on the representations received from any party.

 

The Senior Lawyer stated that prior to the start of the hearing the Premises Licence Holder (PLH)’s representative had informed her that the PLH’s application to adjourn the hearing, received on 4 October 2019, had been withdrawn.  During the pre-meeting the Sub-Committee had also, at the request of all parties, agreed that the commencement time of the Sub-Committee hearing be delayed to allow for negotiations to take place between all relevant parties.  The parties present confirmed that, given the negotiations which had taken place immediately prior to the Sub-Committee and the withdrawal of the request for an adjournment, they did not wish to make any applications.

 

Mr Dominic Thomas, the Barrister representing the Déjà Vu Bar, addressed the Sub-Committee and reiterated that no further adjournment was being sought.  Since the adjournment request, the Premises (via Mr Noel Samaroo) had submitted submissions and therefore there would be no merit in seeking an adjournment.  Mr Thomas informed the Sub-Committee that both he and Mr Edward Elton, the Barrister representing Sussex Police, were obliged to the Sub-Committee for its patience in allowing negotiations to take place prior to the hearing and he apologised to the Sub-Committee for keeping it waiting.  Mr Thomas advised that the negotiations had enabled the parties to establish a precise proposed agreed way forward which satisfied Sussex Police, the Premises and the representative for WSCC Public Health.  It was noted that the proposal would be put before the Sub-Committee for its consideration, by Mr Elton, when invited to do so.  Mr Thomas informed the Sub-Committee that, should the Sub-Committee be minded to endorse the agreement proposed by all parties, Sussex Police would not object to keeping the establishment open (i.e. not revoking the Premises Licence as per their previous written submissions).

 

Report HCS/15 of the Council’s Head of Community Services was presented by Kareen Plympton, Health, Safety and Licensing Team Leader for Crawley Borough Council.  The Committee noted that in addition to the main agenda which had been published on 30 September 2019, two additional supplementary agendas with papers had been published containing submissions on behalf of the PLH by Mr Samaroo.

 

The Application

 

The Council’s Health, Safety and Licensing Team Leader, Kareen Plympton, informed the Sub-Committee that on 24 July 2019 Sussex Police, a ‘Responsible Authority’,had submitted an application to the Council as the Licensing Authority for the borough of Crawley for a review of the Premises Licence in respect of premises known as Déjà Vu Bar, 26-32 High Street, Crawley.

 

The application was detailed in Appendix A to the report and sought a review on the grounds that the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) was not promoting the statutory licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and protection of children from harm.  Sussex Police contended that the licensing objectives had been undermined by the inability of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), Mr Samaroo, to ensure the licensed premises was run in accordance with the conditions attached to the Premises Licence and the PLH had failed to meet its obligations under the Licensing Act 2003 which had led to a number of incidents which were detailed within the report.  A copy of the Premises Licence and a layout plan was attached as Appendix B to the report.

 

Further to Sussex Police’s initial application for a review of the Premises Licence additional evidence had been submitted by Sussex Police (Appendices G-K to the report).  Within that additional evidence Sussex Police had submitted a letter (included within Appendix J to the report) which sought a revocation of the Premises Licence based on the failure of the PLH to comply with the licence conditions, which was compounded by Sussex Police’s subsequent concerns around the integrity of the staff at the premises.  CCTV footage regarding incidents which had taken place on 6 January 2019, 12 January 2019, 5 May 2019, 23 June 2019, 4 July 2019 and 5 May 2019 had been submitted by Sussex Police and had been sent to all relevant interested parties and the Sub-Committee.

 

It was confirmed that the application had been advertised in accordance with legislation, and as a result of the consultation process, three relevant representations had been received.  A representation had been received from the WSCC Public Health Department (Appendix D to the report) which fully supported the application by Sussex Police for a suspension of the Premises Licence, additional conditions including the replacement of Mr Samaroo as DPS and the outsourcing of door supervision to an external Security Industry Authority (SIA)-registered company.  A representation had also been received from West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (Appendix E to the report) which advised that the Fire Authority had no objection to the application for a review of the Premises Licence and gave details of an inspection which had taken place in September 2019.  Crawley Borough Council’s Planning Department submitted a response stating that there were no planning comments (Appendix F to the report).

 

Mr Samaroo on behalf of the PLH submitted a response to Sussex Police’s application (Appendix C to the report).  This information had been issued as supplementary agenda items and had been circulated following publication of report HCS/15.  The supplementary agenda items detailed the following:

 

Supplementary Agenda Item 5:

Representation received from the PLH including:

·         Witness statement of Mr Samaroo.

·         Copies of the existing policies.

·         Witness statements of various staff employed by Déjà Vu Bar.

·         Shield Associates compliance visit and impact statement.

·         Supporting photographs.

·         Information and witness statement relating to the incident on 28 September 2019.

·         Information and witness statement relating to the incident on 1 December 2018.

·         Information and witness statement relating to the incident on 1 January 2019.

·         Information relating to the incident on 6 January 2019.

·         Emails and responses between PC Jones and Noel Samaroo relating to Sussex Police evidence 12 January 2019 to 1 February 2019.

·         Information and witness statement relating to the incident on 9 March 2019.

·         Information relating to the incident on 25 March 2019.

·         Information relating to the incident on 5 May 2019.

·         Information and witness statements relating to the incident on 6 June 2019.

·         Information and witness statement relating to the incident on 15 June 2019.

·         CCTV footage, information and witness statement relating to the incident on 19 June 2019.

·         CCTV footage, information and witness statement relating to the incident on 23 June 2019.

·         Information relating to the incident on 4 July 2019.

 

Supplementary Agenda Item 6:

Representation received from the PLH including:

·         Witness statement relating to the incident on 5 June 2019.

·         Email correspondence between Noel Samaroo and PC Josling (Trail 1).

·         Email correspondence between Noel Samaroo and PC Josling (Trail 2).

 

On 5 September 2019 the PLH made an application to adjourn the hearing in respect of the review from 17 September 2019 on the grounds that Mr Samaroo was still awaiting Freedom of Information responses from West Sussex Ambulance Service and Sussex Police and was of the view that his case was highly prejudiced without that information.  This application was granted and the Head of Legal, Democracy and HR extended the period within which the hearing must be heard by a further 20 working days.  On 29 September 2019 the Premises requested a further adjournment of the hearing due to the amount of information submitted by Sussex Police in support of its application, the escalation of the review to a revocation request and the limited time Mr Samaroo felt he had to collate a defence bundle.  Following consideration of the application for an adjournment and submissions received by the PLH and Sussex Police, a decision was taken to refer the adjournment request to the Sub-Committee where the Sub-Committee members could determine whether or not to agree to a further adjournment.

 

The Sub-Committee was then guided through the remainder of the report which set out the reasons for the hearing and the matters which the Sub-Committee should take into consideration when dealing with the application, including the relevant sections of the Guidance issued by Government pursuant of Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s current Statement of Licensing Policy and associated policy considerations.

 

Ms Plympton took this opportunity to remind the Sub-Committee that the Sub-Committee should take into account the submissions given earlier in the hearing by Mr Dominic Thomas, the barrister representing Déjà Vu Bar.

 

Ms Plympton then proceeded to inform the hearing of the options available to it in respect of the application, and reminded the Sub-Committee that any decision must be appropriate for the promotion of the four licensing objectives. The options were to:

(i)            Modify the conditions of the licence.

(ii)           Exclude a licensable activity form the scope of the premises licence.

(iii)          Remove the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS).

(iv)         Suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months.

(v)          Revoke the licence.

 

The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee had read all the documents published in relation to the review and had viewed the CCTV footage submitted by both Sussex Police and the PLH.

 

The Sub-Committee confirmed that it did not have any questions in relation to the report.

 

The Applicant (Sussex Police)

 

Mr Edward Elton, the Barrister representing Sussex Police, addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed that he and his client had been in discussions with Mr Samaroo and the PLH’s representative, Mr Thomas, immediately prior to the hearing.  He advised that although Sussex Police’s application remained an application for revocation, the discussions had enabled a series of measures to be drawn up which was to the satisfaction of Sussex Police, the PLH and WSCC’s Public Health Department.

 

A document including the proposed measures was provided to those present and is attached to these minutes as Appendix 1.  The Sub-Committee was reminded that the final decision whether to agree those measures was the responsibility of the Sub-Committee itself.  In presenting the proposed measures, Mr Elton advised that should the Sub-Committee be minded to adopt the measures proposed, they would substitute Sussex Police’s original request that the licence be revoked.  Mr Elton specifically drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to certain matters in the document, including:

 

·         Condition 2 which had been revised and related to CCTV requirements which Sussex Police considered pivotal.

·         Condition 7 which related to staff training on the existing premises Drugs Policy.  Mr Elton advised that the training would cover the areas identified on the last page of WSCC’s Public Health Department’s representation (Appendix D to the report).

·         Condition 8 which requested that the premises ceases licensable activity at 0100hrs, was to be deleted as it was no longer sought by Sussex Police.

·         Condition 13 which stipulated that certain members of the current SIA door team would not be permitted onto the premises when licensable activity took place.  Mr Elton advised that a list of those people would be agreed by Sussex Police and Déjà Vu Bar and provided to the Sub-Committee for inclusion in the condition should the Sub-Committee be minded to agree that measure.

·         Condition 15 now requested a suspension period of no less than two weeks.

 

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)
If the Sub-Committee agreed to the new measures would Sussex Police withdraw its application to revoke?	Yes (Mr Elton).
Would Mr Elton please clarify the purpose of the revised proposed measures?	The new proposed measures refined those included in the original application for a review which had requested a suspension of the Premises Licence.  The information and evidence received since the original application had been submitted had led Sussex Police to amend its application to a request for revocation of the Premises Licence.  The new proposed measures had been produced to reflect the level of concern Sussex Police had which had led to the request for revocation (Mr Elton).
Were staff at Déjà Vu Bar not currently undertaking training?	The new proposed conditions would help promote the licensing objectives and would ensure the Premises were compliant with the conditions (Mr Elton). The new proposed conditions would be subject to quality control and would ensure that any breach was actionable by Sussex Police.  Not all the proposed conditions were new and Mr Samaroo (as DPS/PLH) would say that the premises already complied with the conditions relating to the Drugs Policy and training, so he had no objection to them (response provided by Mr Thomas).
Why had condition 8 of the proposed new conditions (which required that the premises cease licensable activity at 0100hrs) been withdrawn by Sussex Police?	That condition had been drawn up in advance of the discussions which had taken place immediately prior to the hearing and had been based on the fact that the majority of incidents at the premises had taken place beyond 0100hrs.  Sussex Police were content that, should a change of SIA door staff and the DPS be agreed by the Sub-Committee alongside the other changes, that condition was no longer necessary (Mr Elton). It was reflected in the negotiations that the parties, where possible, would like the business kept in operation and viable as well as addressing the concerns of Sussex Police.  Onerous conditions had been proposed (including removing Mr Samaroo as DPS).  A re-set beyond two weeks would put the premises out of business at this time of year as would introducing a condition which required the premises to cease trading at 0100hrs.  The amended suspension period of two weeks, alongside the removal of the new proposed condition 8 would allow continuation of the business (response provided by Mr Thomas).
How long would it take to introduce a recognised electronic identification scanning system (proposed new condition 10)?   Could the system be put in place during the period when licensable activity was suspended so it was ready when the premises re-opened?	The system could be provided within days (PC Jones). Mr Samaroo was familiar with the system and was confident it could be in place within a week (Mr Thomas). Yes (response provided by Mr Thomas).
Was Mr Samaroo happy with proposed new condition 12 (that he would not be allowed on the premises whilst licensable activity was taking place)?	Yes, Mr Samaroo had confirmed he was happy with all the new proposed measures (response provided by Mr Thomas).
The information contained within the application for review and the supplementary evidence provided by Sussex Police showed that following incidents, despite assurances from Déjà Vu Bar that the staff involved would be removed, those staff members had returned to the employment of Déjà Vu Bar.  The Sub-Committee wanted to be satisfied that any new proposed conditions would be enforced rigorously	Mr Thomas recognised the concern of the Sub-Committee.  Mr Samaroo had remained loyal to those who had helped establish the business, but the new measures left no place for misplaced loyalty (response provided by Mr Thomas).
Had the SIA door staff been changed over the Summer?	When Déjà Vu Bar changed its SIA door team it had engaged a third party security firm, however some of the SIA door staff previously employed by Déjà Vu Bar were also employed by the third party company (response provided by Mr Thomas). Former members of the Déjà Vu Bar SIA door staff who were of concern by Sussex Police would be specifically named under new proposed condition 13 and would therefore not be allowed on the premises whilst licensable activity was taking place (Mr Elton). Mr Thomas agreed that Mr Slawomir Piatek (known as Slav) would be included on the prescribed list under new proposed condition 13 (response provided by Mr Thomas).
Following the previous change in SIA door staff to a third party security company, did Sussex Police recommend a further change to the company supplying the SIA door staff to Déjà Vu Bar?	No.  The third party security company currently used by Déjà Vu Bar was accredited.  It was specific members of the previously employed SIA door staff who were the issue, not the third party company being used.  Sussex Police were currently satisfied with the SIA arrangements at the premises (PC Jones).
Were three SIA door staff enough for the premises?	The premises had a policy for the positioning of SIA door staff.  The number of SIA door staff required at a premises was based on a ratio to the capacity of the premises (PC Jones).
The first bullet point of new proposed condition 2 stated that CCTV would “cover all public areas, including the entrance to the premises and toilets”, should this be amended to read “…and entrance to the toilets”?	Yes (Mr Elton).
Condition 11 (relating to special events) stated that notification should be submitted “no later than 28 days prior to the date on which the event is to be held”, should this be amended to ensure that any notification was provided in writing?	Notification in writing would include notification via email.  The condition could be re-worded to say “formally notified in writing (by email or otherwise) no later than 28 days prior to the date on which the event is to be held” (Council’s Senior Lawyer and agreed by both barristers).
Did measures need to be put in place to avoid further instances where the barriers blocked the public highway?	Positioning of the barriers was a condition of the current premises licence at Annex 2 (17) but it had not been enforced by previous SIA door staff.  Implementation of the condition was the issue and therefore a new condition was not necessary (Mr Elton). The positioning of the outside area could be included on the layout plan of the Premises Licence to be clear and to assist enforcement (Council’s Health, Safety and Licensing Team Leader). The Council’s Planning Officers could confirm the outside areas authorised for use by the premises under planning permission (Council’s Legal Clerk). WSCC were responsible for highways and would enforce any unauthorised encroachment onto the highway (Councillor Jones).
Would Mr Samaroo remain the PLH even if he was removed as the DPS? (asked by the Council’s Health, Safety and Licensing Team Leader)	That was not a concern as the PLH was responsible for the management of the company (Council’s Legal Clerk). Sussex Police were happy with the distinction between PLH and DPS (Mr Elton).

 

Responsible Authority (Public Health Department)

 

The representative for West Sussex County Council’s Public Health Department, Holly Yandall, addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that she had been involved in the discussions which had taken place immediately prior to the hearing.  Ms Yandall confirmed that the measures proposed (attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes) addressed the concerns contained within her representation (Appendix D to the report).

 

The Sub-Committee did not have any questions for Ms Yandall, acting on behalf of the Public Health Department.

 

Premises Licence Holder (Déjà Vu Bar)

 

Mr Thomas addressed the Sub-Committee.  Mr Thomas advised that, given the information already provided, he was not sure what level of detail to provide to the Sub-Committee as the information he provided would be dependent on whether the Sub-Committee was in agreement with the new proposed conditions (Appendix 1 to these minutes).  In anticipation of the concerns expressed by the Sub-Committee Mr Thomas made the following submissions:

 

·         Mr Thomas and Mr Samaroo were obliged to Sussex Police for the time spent in discussion prior to the hearing.

·         There had been a clear evolution by Déjà Vu Bar over time.  A change in DPS and SIA door team would complete the evolution to ensure the licensing objectives were met.

·         Mr Samaroo had set up the business to benefit the area and staff employed.  It was a huge concession and personal sacrifice for Mr Samaroo to step aside as DPS.  Mr Samaroo’s removal as DPS was a testament to his love for the business and his willingness to comply with the conditions of the Premises Licence and licensing objectives.  His removal as DPS would also be of comfort to Sussex Police.

·         Mr Samaroo had faith in the licensing process.

·         The relationship between Mr Samaroo and Sussex Police should not have been included within Mr Samaroo’s submissions to the Sub-Committee.  That information had not been helpful and Mr Samaroo acknowledged that the way in which he had been treated by Sussex Police had been fair.

·         The removal of Mr Samaroo as DPS would remove the ‘toxicity’ of the relationship between himself and Sussex Police.  It was in the best interest of Déjà Vu Bar and the licensing objectives for him to be removed as DPS.

·         The Sub-Committee’s questions had been rigorous and it would not be abdicating its responsibilities by adopting the measures put forward by Sussex Police and Déjà Vu Bar.

 

Mr Thomas confirmed that the witnesses in attendance were not required as they had only been available should the Sub-Committee have deemed it necessary to have questioned them.  Ian Smith from Shield Associates, who had provided an independent compliance visit and impact assessment for the premises, was in attendance and had confirmed that he was happy with the measures proposed.

 

At 12.50pm the Sub-Committee took an adjournment for lunch.  The Sub-Committee reconvened at 1.30pm.

 

Questions asked by the Sub-Committee of the Premises Licence Holder

 

The Sub-Committee then asked the following questions of the PLH:

 

Questions by the Sub-Committee	Response (respondent in brackets)
How sure were the parties that a two week suspension of licensable activities at the premises was long enough to ensure all necessary measures were put in place?	Sussex Police was satisfied that it was feasible to have the conditions in place by the conclusion of a two week suspension period.  Should the conditions not be adhered to it would constitute a breach of conditions and a further review would be sought.  All parties were aware of the consequences should the conditions of the licence not be met (Mr Elton). Mr Thomas had discussed the issue and proposed measures with Mr Samaroo during the adjournment for lunch and Mr Samaroo was confident that the measures could be accomplished within a two week period.  However, should all conditions not be in place by that time, Déjà Vu Bar would not re-open until they were.  To re-open in breach of conditions would imperil the business (Mr Thomas).
Would Déjà Vu Bar provide an update to the relevant officers as the re-opening date approached?	Mr Thomas would be surprised if PC Jones was not in place when the premises re-opened.  Mr Samaroo would contact PC Jones to advise him of the date and time of re-opening (Mr Thomas). The Council’s Health, Safety and Licensing Team Leader suggested that Mr Samaroo, or the person nominated to have operational control of the premises, could meet with herself and PC Jones ahead of the re-opening to ensure the measures were in place and in accordance with the decision of the Sub-Committee (Health, Safety and Licensing Team Leader).

 

Statement by the Sub-Committee

 

The Chair of the Sub-Committee advised that the Sub-Committee had read all the papers published in respect of the review very carefully and had viewed the CCTV footage provided by Sussex Police and the PLH.  The Chair advised that the evidence suggested several incidents of concern including intoxication, violence by the SIA door team, off-duty staff entering the building by a rear entrance after 0100hrs, CCTV footage not being provided in a timely manner to Sussex Police, minors being allowed access to the premises, body worn camera footage detailing an intention to deceive Sussex Police, serious drug issues within the premises, entry/re-entry to the premises being granted after 0100hrs, obstruction of the highway, staff being dismissed and then re-employed at the premises, crimes not being reported, the Premises Licence not being correctly displayed and staff not pressing charges following incidents at the premises.

 

The Chair stated that all the information contained within the report and supplementary information had been noted by the Sub-Committee.  The Chair considered that, given the issues identified, it was within the remit of the Sub-Committee to exercise the rights available to it.  The Chair then emphasised that whatever the Sub-Committee decided, Crawley Borough Council was committed to upholding the licensing objectives and would continue to do so.

 

In response to the Sub-Committee’s statement Mr Thomas provided the following submissions:

 

·         He hoped that the proposed measures put before the Sub-Committee for its consideration, if adopted, would reduce the need for litigation.

·         Whilst Mr Thomas and Mr Samaroo did not dispute the evidence put forward by Sussex Police, it was important to acknowledge that even though a minor had been admitted access to the premises and was served alcohol, there had only been one instance of this, and that the drug mapping had been conducted with the cooperation of Mr Samaroo.

·         A wider and important point was that whatever Mr Samaroo’s view had been prior to the hearing, Mr Samaroo’s views had been influenced during the course of the hearing, for example Mr Samaroo acknowledged that:

-   His submissions, including his assertion that Sussex Police had ‘picked on him’ were not helpful and were likely to be wrong.

-   Sussex Police had displayed sensitivity and concern to enable the premises to remain open by agreeing the proposed measures put before the Sub-Committee for its consideration.

-   He had produced his submissions in haste and had he had more time to prepare his submissions it was likely that they would have been more temperate.

·         Mr Samaroo, whilst initially opposed to his removal as DPS, was now in agreement which showed his faith in Sussex Police.  It also showed Mr Samaroo’s understanding of the process necessary to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives.

·         He wished the Sub-Committee to recognise that Mr Samaroo had been subject to some difficult circumstances where his wife had been seriously ill and, as a result, Mr Samaroo had been visiting his wife (who lived some distance away) on a frequent basis which had led to him ‘taking his eye off the ball’.  The replacement of Mr Samaroo as DPS would benefit Mr Samaroo himself as it would enable him to more effectively tend to his wife.

·         The town and those in attendance at the Sub-Committee would be better served by someone other than Mr Samaroo as the DPS.

 

Questions asked by the parties of each other

 

All parties confirmed that they did not wish to ask questions of each other.

 

Closing Statement by the parties

 

Following an invitation from the Chair, each party confirmed that they did not wish to make a closing statement prior to the Sub-Committee deliberations.  Mr Elton provided the Sub-Committee with a revised copy of the proposed new measures agreed by Sussex Police and the PLH for its consideration (Appendix 2 to these minutes).