Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

[To consider the application]

In Attendance

For the Premises

P Adams – Premises Licence Holder

D Craig – Legal Advisor

M A Madani – Applicant

T Madani – Brother of Applicant

Responsible Authority

PC M Harvey – West Midlands Police

The meeting was opened at 10 am and adjourned for six minutes to enable the Legal Advisor to consult with his client. 

The Chair introduced the parties and outlined the procedure to be followed at the hearing.

The Section Leader (Licensing) outlined the report circulated to all parties in advance of the meeting. In addition to the report, the following was circulated:

·         On behalf of West Midlands Police – information request to Home Office Immigration Command and Control Unit and follow up email

·         On behalf of applicant – correspondence received from the Home Office via Kingswood Solicitors

At this juncture, Mr Craig outlined the application to vary the premises licence to specify Mr M A Madani as the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) for Malones Bar and, in so doing, drew attention to Sections 4.26 to 4.28 of the Section 182 guidance whereby the Police may only object to a person proposed as a DPS where, in exceptional circumstances, it is believed granting will undermine the crime prevention objective. He advised that Mr Madani had legally resided in the UK since 2004, was a Personal Licence Holder and was currently awaiting confirmation from the Home office of a legal right to remain pending the outcome of an on-going application.  He further stated that there was no evidence of criminality in respect of the applicant.

Responding to questions, Mr Craig stated that the definition of working related to a person receiving remuneration, i.e. cash changing hands.  Mr T Madani advised that his brother had come into the country to assist him when he had been diagnosed with Cancer and had three businesses at the time.  Mr M Madani had applied to the Home Office to leave the UK in order to attend his daughter’s wedding. Mr Craig advised that the applicant’s immigration status was currently pending and therefore not allowed to work.  Should he be granted DPS status, there would be little change to the time he would spend at the premises (approximately three times per week), although his responsibilities in regard to compliance with the licence conditions would be onerous, but did not necessitate him being on the premises at all times.

At this juncture PC Harvey outlined the objection to the application on behalf of the West Midlands Police and, in so doing, advised that Home Office guidance defined a DPS as the person with day to day responsibility for a licensed premises.  He had liaised with the UK Border Agency and the applicant had been served papers as an ‘over stayer’ and was not allowed to work in the UK.  He stated that the Home Office definition of employment was ‘any work that could be paid or unpaid which can only be undertaken by express permission of the Secretary of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To pass the following resolution:

That in accordance with section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of schedule 12A to the act relating to the business affairs of particular persons.

Resolved:

            That, in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Act relating to the business affairs of particular persons.

The Sub-Committee discussed the issues which had been raised during the hearing and the Solicitor advised them of the options open to them in determining the matter.

The parties returned to the meeting and were advised of the Sub-Committee’s decision as follows:

The Sub-Committee has taken note of all the written concerns in respect of the application to vary a premises licence to specify an individual as Designated Premises Supervisor for Malones Bar, 35a Lichfield Street, Bilston and has listened to the arguments of those who have spoken at this hearing, both for and against the application.

Section 39 of the Licensing Act 2003 provides that applications to vary a person specified as a Designated Premises Supervisor may only be rejected if it is considered appropriate for the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

The Sub-Committee has heard from the applicant, via his legal representative, that:

1.    at Sections 4.26 to 4.28 of the Section 182 guidance, the Police may only object to a person proposed as a Designated Premises Supervisor where, in exceptional circumstances, it is believed granting will undermine the crime prevention objective. ‘Exceptional circumstances’ is given its ordinary meaning and the applicant’s representative went on to summarise why the applicant was suitable.  This included confirmation that there was no evidence of criminality relating to this individual and Home Office papers confirm he had a legal right to remain in the UK pending the outcome of an on-going application.

2.    he concedes that the immigration reporting restrictions include a restriction preventing him from working in the UK.  It is also confirmed that the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor already undertakes unpaid duties at the premises and it is not envisaged these will increase considerably if this application is granted, even though the applicant will then be required to undertake the role of Designated Premises Supervisor.

The Sub-Committee has heard from the West Midlands Police that:

1. a Designated Premises Supervisor has day to day responsibility for running the business;
2. the applicant has no permission to work in the UK;
3. the Home Office has confirmed verbally to them that the Border Agency guidance provides that employment is any work paid or unpaid undertaken without permission of the Secretary of State;
4. Section 182 guidance provides that to knowingly employ persons who should not be employed in the UK is an offence, and
5. Therefore, to grant this application would allow the applicant to work in the UK undermining the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

In the absence of any statutory definition, the dictionary definition or work is – ‘activity involving mental or physical effort, done in order to achieve a result’.

The Licensing Sub-Committee is satisfied that the applicant undertakes work at the premises and will do so if this application is granted.

The Sub-Committee is further satisfied that Home Office guidance provides that work can be paid or unpaid and therefore exceptional circumstances exist which mean the granting would undermine the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.  The application is therefore refused.

All parties have a right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of this decision.

[To consider the application for review made by the West Midlands Police]

In Attendance

For the Premises

P Adams – Premises Licence Holder

D Craig – Legal Advisor

M A Madani – Applicant

T Madani – Brother of Applicant

Responsible Authorities

PC M Harvey – West Midlands Police

E Moreton – Licensing Authority

The Section Leader (Licensing) outlined the report circulated to all parties in advance and, in so doing, drew attention to the hearing held on 17 December 2015 at which the Sub-Committee had resolved to suspend the premises licence as an interim step.

At this juncture, PC Harvey outlined the review application attached as Appendix 3 to the report.  He advised that he intended to show CCTV footage obtained from the premises.  However, the Legal Advisor to the Premises Licence Holder expressed concern that the footage had not been provided in advance of the hearing.  The meeting was adjourned to enable the Sub-Committee to consider the matter and the Solicitor advised them of the courses of action available in moving the matter forward. The parties returned to the meeting and Mr Craig, having consulted with his clients, agreed to proceed with the hearing subject to being allowed to view the footage prior to continuing with the hearing.  The meeting was therefore adjourned for approximately 30 minutes and re-convened at 1.22 pm.

PC Harvey continued with his submission and played the CCTV footage relating to the early hours of 7 November 2015, showing people being allowed into the premises by Mr T Madani outside the licensed hours. Mr M Madani is seen serving behind the bar, customers are smoking and there are ashtrays on all the tables.  The footage shows the assault inside the premises, the victim being let out closely followed by the offender and two others.  The victim is assaulted again and the offender is let back into the premises appearing very animated, goes behind the bar and is given a pint.  PC Harvey continues to show snapshots of footage within the busy venue, showing people entering and exiting via the rear entrance and what he believes to be the taking of Class A Drugs. PC Harvey advised that this was the only CCTV footage he had seen, the assault would have been clearly viewed from behind the bar, there was no evidence of the use of Class A drugs other than what was viewed on the CCTV footage and that he had been advised that on the night of the private party (7 November 2015) Mr Garfield McDonald was registered as the Designated Premises Supervisor.  PC Harvey indicated that it was clear that none of the staff had any regard for the licensing objectives and no Temporary Event Notice had been submitted for the private party. He added that no attempt had been made to contact the emergency services following the unprovoked assault. PC Harvey stated that an application to transfer the premises licence had been refused in 2013 due to incidents of crime and disorder and trading outside the licensed hours. The Police interview statement attached to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To pass the following resolution:

That in accordance with section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of schedule 12A to the act relating to the business affairs of particular persons.

Resolved:

            That, in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Act relating to the business affairs of particular persons.

The Sub-Committee discussed the issues which had been raised during the hearing and the Solicitor advised them of the options open to them in determining the matter. 

The parties returned to the meeting and were advised of the Sub-Committee’s decision as follows:

An application has been made by the West Midlands Police for a review of the premises licence in respect of Malones Bar, 35a Lichfield Street, Bilston.

At this hearing to review the Premises Licence, the Licensing Sub-Committee has listened carefully to all representations made by the persons who have spoken at this hearing, has considered all the evidence presented and has found the following facts:

The Sub-Committee has heard from the West Midlands Police that:

1. following a serious crime relating to a serious incident which began inside and then moved outside the premises on 7 November 2015, the West Midlands Police applied to the Licensing Authority for an expedited summary review of the premises licence.  The hearing took place on 17 December 2015. Due to the serious nature of the incident, the Licensing Sub-Committee determined to suspend the premises licence pending a full review of the licence, in accordance with Section 53 of the Licensing Act 2003.  This is the reason the Sub-Committee has been convened today;
2. CCTV footage was shown of the incident on 7 November 2015.  This related to the assault which began on the premises, when a man was punched twice.  He then ran from the premises. PC Harvey confirmed that, whilst it was not evident from the CCTV footage outside the premises, the victim of the assault was attacked again outside the bank a short distance from the premises and was also robbed. Outside the premises the victim was attacked and robbed by the same person who assaulted him inside the premises moments before:
3. the CCTV footage also shows that the premises were selling alcohol on this occasion outside the hours permitted on the licence. Staff at the premises would have witnessed the incident, but chose to ignore it and did not call the emergency services.  There is also a suggestion from the footage that drugs are used on the premises.  Also, patrons are allowed to smoke on the premises and ashtrays are provided.  The West Midlands Police have also confirmed that, on 7 November 2015, the premises had not applied for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) in order to sell alcohol outside the hours permitted on their licence;
4. there have been several licence breaches and wounding on the premises.  This and the offence of robbery could attract a custodial sentence, and
5. there is no confidence in the management structure at the premises and, in the circumstances, it is only a matter of time before a similar or worse incident occurs.  Therefore, revocation of the licence is appropriate.

The Sub-Committee has heard from Elaine Moreton, Licensing Authority (as Responsible Authority), that she has attended this hearing to support the application made by the West Midlands Police. 

The Sub-Committee has heard from the Premises Licence Holder, via his partner and legal representative, that suspension of the licence is appropriate and have confirmed that:

1. staff did not witness the incident on 7 November 2015 or notify the Police or other emergency services;
2. the reason for operating outside  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.