EALING LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE FINAL REVIEW HEARING: THE TUDOR ROSE FRIDAY, 13 TH JUNE 2014

Transcription

1 EALING LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE FINAL REVIEW HEARING: THE TUDOR ROSE FRIDAY, 13 TH JUNE 2014 PRESENT: Councillors Kate Crawford, Shital Manro and Nigel Sumner ALSO PRESENT: Ealing Borough Council Loraine Abbott Jimmy Umrigar Cameron MacLean Applicant: Metropolitan Police James Rankin Sergeant Graham Edwards DC Bob Boodhram PC Kerry James PC Les Smith Representing The Tudor Rose Mr David Dadds Mr Alan Aylott Ms Ursula James Ms Alison Williams MBE Also Present Cllr Lauren Wall Mr Nigel Charlton David Page Andrew Deane Licensing Officer Legal Officer Democratic Services Officer Counsel, Francis Taylor Building Dadds Solicitors LLP The Neighbours of the Green Association Mr Meharban Lall Harjinder Singh Jasminder Mathan Edmond Subhra Designated Premises Supervisor, The Tudor Rose The Tudor Rose Licensing Consultant Ealing Council Regulatory Services Metropolitan Police Service LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE: FRIDAY, 13 TH JUNE THE TUDOR ROSE, 68 THE GREEN, SOUTHALL UB2 4BG The Chair introduced the Sub Committee Members and outlined the procedure to be followed at the hearing. Summary of the Licensing Officer s Report Loraine Abbott, Licensing Officer, summarised the Licensing Officer s report, which had been previously circulated to members of the Sub Committee and interested parties. Mr Dadds, Dadds Solicitors LLP, asked if the Sub Committee members had received copies of papers he had sent the day before, including a short statement by Mr Alan Aylott, Licensing Consultant, and a summary of the CAD (Computer Aided 1

2 Despatch) and CRIS (Crime Reporting Information System) reports submitted by the Police in support of their application. He proposed speaking to these papers, which he said, would save Sub Committee Members from having to write down everything that was said. The Chair stated that the Sub Committee members were aware of the additional papers that had been sent, but had not been given copies of these papers. She was concerned that if the papers comprised a summary of what had already been sent to Members, this might present a one-sided view and she was anxious that the Sub Committee remain objective in its considerations. She then asked if Mr Rankin, representing the Police, had been given the opportunity to discuss the papers with Mr Dadds. Mr Rankin stated that the papers were sent to him very late the day before, after he had left chambers, and that he had not had an opportunity to verify the detailed analysis in the papers. In addition, he doubted that the residents had been given an opportunity to review the papers as they were received so late in the day. Mr Umrigar, Legal Adviser to the Sub Committee, stated that it was unlikely that the residents had seen the papers as they were received by him at 7.02pm, by which time he had left the office. Mr Rankin stated that, if Mr Dadds wished to rely on the papers, it was incumbent upon him to have served the papers on the residents who were a party to the proceedings. The Chair stated that, as the papers included a summary of the papers that were already before the Members, she did not believe that it would harm Mr Dadds s case if the Sub Committee did not consider the additional papers. Mr Dadds stated that the summary of the CAD and CRIS reports in the additional papers referred to the page numbers in the bundle before the Sub Committee, and that he would refer to these page numbers during his presentation. However, he was concerned that the Police had bulked the papers together and, in his opinion, had attempted to mislead the Sub Committee the last time the parties had been here, and that they might try once more to mislead the Sub Committee. Mr Umrigar asked that any such points should be reserved until the parties made their presentations to the Sub Committee. Mr Dadds stated that the reason for raising this point now was in response to the suggestion by the Chair that there might be an issue of bias if the Sub Committee was to receive the papers. The Chair noted that the Sub Committee members had read the papers and had made detailed notes. She appreciated the importance of page numbering for reference purposes and was sure that the parties could direct the Sub Committee members to the relevant pages in the course of their presentations. Therefore, the Sub Committee would proceed without the additional papers. Presentation on behalf of the Police Mr Rankin reminded the Sub Committee of the background to the present application, which had been considered at the expedited hearing on 21 st May At that hearing, the sub committee had considered two stabbing that had occurred outside the premises on the night of the 17 th and 18 th of May He stated that it might be suggested by Mr Dadds that the stabbings, which had taken place in streets neighbouring The Tudor Rose, were not related to events at the Tudor Rose and, therefore, could not be attributed in any way to those events. However, it had since been established that it had been the intention of the victims of the stabbings to attend the Somali Independence Day celebrations taking place at The Tudor Rose 2

3 that night, and for which, it was noted, that no Temporary Event Notice (TEN) was in place. The first stabbing victim had stated he been to The Tudor Rose and was sitting in a car outside the nearby Peri Peri Chicken shop when he was assaulted at 23:17 hours by a group of up to 10 individuals. Mr Rankin noted that there was no CCTV of this incident, but there was CCTV footage of the second stabbing that took place a little after 2.30am. At this stage, Mr Rankin then referred the Sub Committee to the following conditions on the licence, which had been imposed after a previous review hearing following a stabbing of a 17-year old female victim in September Condition 1 The premises CCTV system shall be fully operational and maintained at all times to those standards as specified by the Metropolitan Police. Condition 5 Recordings from the CCTV system shall be made available on request by the Licensing Authority or the Police with a designated and suitably trained member of staff present on the premises at all times during operating hours. In addition copies of CCTV footage shall also be made available within 24 hours of a request by the Police or Licensing Authority or within such reasonable extension of time as may be granted by the Police or the Licensing Authority. Condition 11 No entry or re-entry to the premises after 01:00 hours Condition 18 In respect of the external drinking area, no drinking shall be allowed in this area after 23:00 hours Condition 21 Music shall not be played at a level within the premises which can be heard at or in the nearest resident s house. Condition 31 The premises capacity of 650shall be adhered to and an electronic counter shall be used to maintain the count. Condition 33 No glassware shall be used on the premises. He proposed that these conditions were observed more in the breach than in the observance, and that Mr Dadds might suggest that there was a cultural difficulty experienced by the premises in adhering to the last entry at 1.00am condition of the licence. However, it was the Police position that it had been three years since the condition had been imposed, which was more than enough time for the both the premises and its customers to get used to the condition. Having viewed CCTV images of the premises, the Police had identified numerous breaches of this condition, including, on one occasion, up to 125 persons being admitted within the space of one hour after 1.00am. Mr Rankin went on to say that this was an important condition on the licence as it stopped people arriving late. 3

4 Mr Rankin then moved on to what happened on the night of 17 th and 18 th May 2014, noting that a large crowd of between 60 and 100 persons had gathered outside the premises when a dispute occurred on the opposite side of the road from the premises. This dispute then spread to outside the premises. He noted that an alert London Borough of Ealing CCTV operative had witnessed and recorded the incident, which culminated in a group of up to 10 persons chasing the victim up the road before setting upon him at premises not far from The Tudor Rose, where he was punched, kicked, hit with a belt, and eventually stabbed three times, one stab wound being the length of a biro and narrowly missing the victim s aorta. Mr Rankin stated that it might be suggested that, because the incident occurred away from the premises, that The Tudor Rose could not be held responsible. However, there was of case law to show that premises which were perfectly well run on the inside, but where there were disturbances outside, could be fixed with the blame for those instances outside the premises if there was a causative link between the premises and the behaviour of its patrons after they have left the premises, or before they had entered. Mr Rankin referred to the analogy of moths to a flame that he had used at the Interim Steps hearing. He stated that if the premises were not there and open to 2.30am on Fridays and Saturdays, and 2.00am Monday to Thursday, with half-an-hour drinking up time; and if the premises did not operating a procedure whereby patrons could turn up after 1.00am and get in, there would not be a large group of persons outside the premises with the resulting difficulties. Mr Rankin stated it was the Police position that they wanted these premises closed; that matters had gone on for too long; and that the evidence was too overwhelming to allow these premises the luxury of continuing to trade. Mr Rankin noted that advocates representing premises would often analyse CAD and CRIS reports and mine them for some precious material. He could see from Mr Dadds s analysis of the case, that was what he had done, whereby a firearms incident referred to in the Police reports had been downgraded to use of a water pistol. It was accepted that analysis of CRIS and CAD reports would provide this information. However, for the Police, this particular incident with the water pistol had started as an allegation of a firearms offence reported by a member of the public resulting in Trident being alerted. Mr Rankin proposed that the Sub Committee put aside the detail for one moment and look at the totality of what was being alleged against the premises. He stated that the cumulative impression of what was going on was premises that were run badly and a source of constant disorder. He went on to say that it may be suggested that the Police had an animus towards Ms James and that there was a conspiracy at a senior level to have these premises closed, and the statement by Nigel Charlton, the former licensing sergeant at Ealing, was intended to support that contention. Any allegation that these proceedings and those of the expedited review were racially motivated would be reprehensible. He stated that it may suit the requirements of gamekeepers turned poachers, in their new profession, to adopt such a position. However, he did not propose to go into any detail, unless it was necessary, as to why it was that Mr Charlton was sitting on one side of the room, and not the other. Mr Rankin stated that another matter of concern was the failure by the management of the premises to disclose CCTV images. He noted that Condition 5 of the licence required that CCTV images be made available on request. He noted that, over the 4

5 Bank Holiday weekend of 25 th and 26 th May, matters again took a turn for the worse when the premises were observed by the London Borough of Ealing (LBE) CCTV and CCTV images showed a dispute occurring at about 5.30am when there was a TEN in place. [Mr Dadds noted that the CCTV images referred to by Mr Rankin were from 2013 and Mr Rankin confirmed this was correct]. Mr Rankin stated that the refusal by Ms James, possibly on the advice of her legal representatives not to disclose CCTV without the Police having first completed Form 3022 Data Protection Release Form requesting disclosure of the CCTV, was of concern because any such advice was wrong, misconceived, and unhelpful. Admissions by door staff on the weekend following the Expedited Review hearing indicated that over 900 persons were in the premises in breach of the premises licence condition limiting the number to 650 (and 499 if operating under a TEN). The Police had wished to view CCTV to confirm the number of persons admitted to the premises on that occasion. In response to an objection by Mr Dadds that Mr Rankin did not know what advice he had given to his client, Mr Rankin stated that, if the advice that had been given by Mr Dadds was that the CCTV images should not be provided, that was wrong advice. The Police were entitled to ask for the CCTV because the conditions of the licence made it a requirement of law, and because the Police wished to investigate crime. The wording of the relevant exemption referred to such disclosure if necessary in order to prosecute or apprehend offences, for the prevention and detection of crime, and because its disclosure was required by law. Therefore, it was inelegant and unhelpful for Ms James not to disclose the information. Mr Rankin went on to say that the Police wished to resist any suggestion that they had not attempted to engage with Ms James. The papers before the Sub Committee showed that there had been lengthy meetings documented by letters confirming the content of those meetings. In particular, there had been constant advice proffered, and a continual theme of the meetings and correspondence had been the question of Ms James allowing entrance to the premises after 1.00am. Turning to the large-scale fight on 27 th May 2013, in which 10-to-15 persons were involved, and which included the use of bottles as weapons, Mr Rankin stated that there was CCTV of this fight. Mr Rankin stated that it was the Police case that these premises were out of control and it was significant that 19 of the 29 incidents logged by the Police for the Sub Committee s consideration occurred between 2.00am and 5.00am. Therefore, it was the Police view that it was time to pull the plug on these premises. Mr Rankin then referred the Sub Committee to page 87 of the papers before Members, where there was correspondence indicating that it was on the advice of her legal representatives that Ms James had withheld the CCTV that had been requested by the Police. Because of the exemption in the Act, the respondent was not allowed to hide behind Form 3022 and had to provide the CCTV. He asked what was the difficulty in providing the CCTV, unless the CCTV was unhelpful to the premises operator, which would explain the reluctance in making it available to the Police. Mr Rankin went on to say there was a beginning of a suggestion at the expedited hearing that there had been no objection by the Police to Ms Alison Williams, who 5

6 had taken over as the DPS from Ms James, as a result of ill health, handing back the reigns of DPS to Ms James. The reason for this was, better the devil you know, rather than some untested person in these volatile premises. Witness Statement of PC Kerry James (Pages 25-39) Mr Rankin referred the Sub Committee to the statement of PC Kerry James on Page 25, which detailed meetings that had taken place with Ms Ursula James and the CRIS reports, and to Page 52, which contained the follow-up information to the meetings PC James had with Ms James. In response to a number of questions by Mr Rankin, PC James provided the following information The Police view of the premises prior to the present proceedings was that the premises were associated with a large amount of crime and disorder, and that there were repeated disturbances and breaches of the licence conditions. Viewing of CCTV Images The Sub Committee then viewed CCTV images of (i) The night of 17 th and 18 th of May 2014, which included images of the second stabbing that took place that night; and (ii) An altercation and subsequent fight that took place outside the premises after a TEN at 5.47am on 26 th May PC Kerry James provided a commentary for Members and answered a number of questions by Mr Rankin regarding the images that were being viewed. In response to questions by Members, PC James stated that (i) The Police had still not received from Ms James the CCTV images that had been requested by the Police (ii) There had also been an incident on 1 st December 2013 when the premises had failed to provide CCTV images on request, and there was correspondence in the papers before the Sub Committee detailing this request (Page 89 of the papers) Witness Statement of Sergeant Graham Edwards (11 th separately)) 6 June 2014 circulated Mr Rankin referred to the witness statement by Sergeant Edwards, which firmed up the connection between the two victims and The Tudor Rose. Sergeant Edwards stated that two paragraphs in his statement had been taken from a statement by one of the victims, which stated that he knew who had attacked him. As Police investigations were ongoing, he could not provide any more information on what the victim had said in his statement. Regarding any suggestion that there might be a high-level conspiracy against the premises, Sergeant Edwards stated that this was not the case and that the Police had worked extensively with Ms James in an effort to make the premises a success. Regarding Ms James s reinstatement as DPS, Sergeant Edwards stated that, as he wanted the premises to succeed, he thought Ms James was the person best placed to take over the premises given her contact with the Police and knowledge of the issues facing the premises.

7 Witness Statement of DC Bob Boodhram (Pages 40-45) In response to a number of questions by Mr Rankin regarding his witness statement, DC Bob Boodhram said that his statement referred to a number of breaches of the last entry condition on the licence. In addition, his statement referred to routine patrols that the police made of various licensed premises that had come to the attention of the Police. DC Boodhram stated that the patrols had been carried out in the evenings when licensed venues were in operation. He stated that The Tudor Rose had been one of the venues that had been observed, but the police had not singled it out for special attention as there were several other licensed venues that were the subject of observation in the course of the particular patrol referred to in the statement. Mr Rankin concluded by stating that ended his presentation on behalf of the Police. Questions In response to questions by Mr Dadds seeking clarification on a number of matters, Sergeant Edwards, DC Boodhram and PC James provided the following information (i) (ii) (iii) Regarding the stabbing on the 18 th of May outside Peri Peri Chicken, Sergeant Edwards did not know if any of the other occupants of the car in which the victim had been sitting when he was stabbed had been in Peri Peri Chicken. Sergeant Edwards stated that he did not know how long the car had been parked outside Peri Peri Chicken before the stabbing took place, and that he had only watched those CCTV images that had been presented to the Sub Committee today. Any CCTV images relating to that incident would have been viewed by the detective sergeant investigating the crime. DC Boodhram confirmed that he had watched a segment of the CCTV images provided by LBE CCTV cameras of the incident. (iv) With reference to the certificate of the Chief Superintendent set out on Page 23, where it stated that the victim had attended The Tudor Rose, and the subsequent statement in which it was confirmed that the victim had intended to go to The Tudor Rose, Sergeant Edwards stated that, when the application for the Expedited Review was made, that was the information the Police had at the time. (v) Sergeant Edwards confirmed that the victim s description of his intention to go to and/or his presence at The Tudor Rose appeared to have changed since his statement to the Police. However, it was confirmed that, in that statement, he had said that the persons who attacked him had come from the direction of The Tudor Rose and it was reasonable for the Police to think that they were patrons of The Tudor Rose. (vi) Regarding the second stabbing and inconsistencies in the statement by the victim set out on Page 37 of PC James s witness statement, in particular, the time of the train the victim took to get to hospital, and his claim that he had been struck by a bottle, PC James stated that the victim had attended Ealing Hospital where the victim of the first stabbing was also being treated. Having checked his account of how he got to the hospital, Police confirmed that his statement was not correct. 7

8 (vii) Regarding the purported statement given to Police by a friend of the victim that he heard from someone else that the incident had occurred outside The Tudor Rose, and that PC James s statement contained multiple hearsay, PC James confirmed that she had not spoken to the victim, and that the victim had given his statement to Police attending Ealing Hospital. (viii) Sergeant Edwards commented that, looking at the crime report, it was apparent that the victim was unwilling to assist the Police in their investigation and had been obstructive. (ix) PC James said that, with regard to the Camera 17, of the CCTV images viewed by the Sub Committee, there were two camera angles, neither of which was directed at the front of The Tudor Rose. Therefore, it was not possible to see if the victim was coming from, or going to, The Tudor Rose. It was for this reason that the Sub Committee had only been shown CCTV images of the incident and not what had been captured on CCTV before and after the attack. (x) PC James confirmed that she had watched many hours of CCTV and had watched CCTV images from Cameras 17 and 18 from 00:04 to 04:00 hours. Regarding any relationship between the youths responsible for the attack opposite The Tudor Rose, and the victim, she had not seen the victim on CCTV before 01:55 hours and could not say when he arrived at the scene. Also, she did not have any other witness statements confirming that the victim was intending to go the premises. [Based on this evidence, Mr Dadds suggested that there was no causal connection between the victim and the premises, other than that the victim was outside The Tudor Rose when the attack occurred.] (xi) Regarding the Red Amber Green (RAG) system adopted by the Police for grading licensed premises, Sergeant Edwards stated that it was not necessary for premises to be classified as Green to be granted a TEN, and he did not know what classification The Tudor Rose had been given when it was granted a number of TENs in the last six months. (xii) Sergeant Edwards confirmed that the TENs had been granted on the basis that to grant them would not undermine the licensing objectives, and that TENs had been granted allowing the premises to operate until either 5.00am or 6.00am. (xiii) Of the 21 days in which the premises had been granted extended hours by way of TENs, there was only one application for a TEN to which the Police had raised an objection, and this had been permitted to go ahead after receipt by the Police of assurances from the applicant. (xiv) Sergeant Edwards confirmed that no other objections had been raised to the various TEN applications made by the operator last year or this year. (xv) Sergeant Edwards stated that he was aware of Form Regarding the statement by Clare Ward, Head of Information Sharing at the Metropolitan Police, that all Police officers received training in Data Protection, he stated that he would have received training in data protection. At this point in the proceedings, Mr Rankin stated that a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Data Protection Act would not assist in this case as the Police came under an exemption as it was a request for images in pursuance of the detection or apprehension of offenders and/or a disclosure by law. Therefore, 8

9 whether or not Form 3022 had been filled in or not was neither here nor there as it was a requirement of law to provide the Police with the CCTV images requested. If there was a refusal to meet the request, the Police could apply to the Magistrates Court for a warrant requiring disclosure of the CCTV. All that the Police were suggesting was that it would have been helpful if they had been provided with the CCTV images to which they were entitled. Mr Dadds stated that Mr Rankin was referring to the provisions of the Data Protection Act which allowed the data controller, who held the relevant data, exemption from prosecution when disclosing the information to third party organisations, such as the Metropolitan Police. However, the Metropolitan Police had a process for obtaining third party data from organisations, which required the Police to complete Form The Police had a number of options including seizing CCTV, if they believed there had been a crime, seeking an order from the Magistrates Court, or seeking voluntary disclosure via Form At this point in the proceedings, the Chair stated that the Sub Committee had taken notice of the arguments presented regarding disclosure of CCTV images. (xvi) Sergeant Edwards agreed that, when there was a TEN in place, and there were no licence conditions in place as the licence had been suspended, as was the case of the TEN held on Monday, 26 th May, there would be no condition in place regarding CCTV. Representations on Behalf of Neighbours of the Green Association Mr Lall, representing the Neighbours of the Green Association, said that members of the Association had met to discuss late night opening of premises in the area. He stated that resident s had experienced problems of late night noise and anti-social behaviour for the last 10 or 12 years, although the situation was much better since the licensing hours of The Tudor Rose were reduced a few years ago. Discussion by the Association had focussed on TENs, which were the cause of many continuing problems, including noise and anti-social behaviour, and cars parking in the area and blocking driveways. Concerns for personal safety and for the safety of children had almost made the area a no-go area at times and affected the quality of life, as had been evidenced by the CCTV. When there were events on, residents tended to stay indoors because it was difficult to walk along the streets because of the parked cars and the number of people on the streets and in the roads. At the Association meeting, there was a feeling that little was being done by the local authority to address the concerns of residents. Mr Lall stated that parking was a significant issue as there was no parking enforcement after 11.00pm until 7.00am, which lumbered the residents with this problem. The Association had also worked closely with its ward councillors and was supportive of the Southall Big Project, which was designed to create safer neighbourhoods and instil a sense of civic pride. Parking and related anti-social behaviour and nuisance was one area that had to be looked at if the project was going to deliver on its commitments. There was also a number of businesses that were members of the Association. One hotel business received negative comments on Trip Advisor because of the noise of the entertainment from the various venues. Consequently, it would be fair to say that 9

10 residents felt that the area was at times a no-go area because of the noise, car horns and dispersal not taking place in an orderly manner. In addition, many residents had relatives who came to visit, arriving late at the train station, when residents would not consider it safe to walk from the station. Mr Lall noted the effect the noise and anti-social behaviour was having on resident s health, as stated in the Association s representations, and that there was a feeling amongst residents that the issues had to be addressed in a serious manner as the situation had been allowed to go on for too many years. One solution, he proposed, might be to restrict the premises hours to midnight. He said that if events were allowed to go on until 5.00am or 6.00am, this was particularly problematic for residents. In particular it had become the norm for people attending functions to park their cars wherever they wished knowing that there would be no parking enforcement by the local authority. Mr Lall said that residents were working on their commitment in the Southall Charter and playing their role. He noted that the Charter stated that the Council would take enforcement action if necessary to make sure there were safer neighbourhoods, and to bring a sense of civic pride to the area. In conclusion, the concerns of residents had to be looked at in a serious manner and see if there was a balance to be struck. In response to a number of questions, Mr Lall provided the following information (i) (ii) (iii) Given that there were a number of premises that held late night TENs, including the Milan Palace, 90% of the time, it was The Tudor Rose that was the cause of resident s concern. Residents were able to identify The Tudor Rose as being the cause of their concerns as they lived in the immediate vicinity of the premises and could see that it was The Tudor Rose that was holding a late night event. The Hotel referred to in Mr Lall s presentation was located almost opposite The Tudor Rose, and that no reference had been made to the Hotel in the Association s representations. [The Chair agreed that this particular information would not be taken into consideration by the Sub Committee, as it was new information]. (iv) Mr Lall stated that he lived in close proximity to The Tudor Rose and he could see The Tudor Rose from where he lived. He and other residents who were members of the Association had telephoned the Police on a number of occasions when witnessing noise nuisance. Personally, he had witnessed numerous incidents but had not telephoned the Police or Environmental Health on every occasion. (v) He had not had any particular issues with noise and nuisance caused by the chicken seller who operated outside the premises late at night. (vi) The issues were predominantly to do with late night events at The Tudor Rose and residents had been living with this situation for 10 or 12 years. That the Milan Palace had only recently started late night functions and this was a relatively minor issue compared with The Tudor Rose Representations on Behalf of Ealing Council s Noise and Nuisance Teams David Page, Regulatory Services Officer, stated that the Noise Nuisance Team had come to support the Police application, as part of the Noise Nuisance Team s 10

11 function was to deal with anti-social behaviour and to monitor TENs. Friday and Saturdays between 2.00am and 6.00am was when the Noise Team ( the Team ) received most complaints. The Team had limited resources to respond to complaints, having only one vehicle covering the whole borough. In addition, officers had to prioritise complaints, giving priority to complaints about premises that were being prosecuted. In addition, officers were only on duty until 5.00am and many complaints of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour were received after that time. The Noise Nuisance Team had been working with Mr Lall and The Neighbours of the Green Resident s Association. Monitoring The Tudor Rose had revealed a number of breaches of the premises licence conditions as set out on Page 145 of the Licensing Officer s report. On 24 th November and 1 st December 2013 and 18 th January 2014, officers had attended The Tudor Rose and witnessed breaches of the licence conditions, including loud, amplified music. Officers had confirmed that the source of noise on each occasion was The Tudor Rose. Mr Page stated that there had been numerous complaints by residents, and officers had been able to confirm that the source of the nuisance was The Tudor Rose. He also stated that one of the main issues for the Noise and Nuisance Team were reports that people felt threatened by large groups of people hanging around on nights when there was a late night function at The Tudor Rose, linking The Tudor Rose with resident s complaints of feeling intimidated. In addition, when the venue was not open, there did not seem to be an issue with parking. In response to a number of questions, Mr Page provided the following information (i) (ii) (iii) Of the four complaints referred to in his presentation, these had been taken from the period beginning 1 st January 2013 to the present when officers had started to monitor the premises after the review of its licence in The only CCTV that Noise Nuisance officers had reviewed was the incident involving the man with red trousers that had been shown to the Sub Committee. On viewing this CCTV, officers had referred the CCTV to the Police. When officers had attended the premises, they had witnessed youths hanging around the area, opposite the premises, and in the road up to 100 metres away from the premises where various cars were parked. (iv) There were a few other venues in the area, but the incidents to which he referred in his presentation occurred only when The Tudor Rose was open. The complaints concerned noise and nuisance after 2.00pm when other premises, such as the Chicken Shop, were shut. (v) Complaints that were directly linked to The Tudor Rose were made by a number of complainants, as set out on Pages 142 to 144 of the Licensing Officer s report. (vi) The Noise and Nuisance Team would object to a TEN application if it was felt that it would be a cause of noise nuisance; and there had been no objections by The Noise Team to The Tudor Rose TEN applications in (vii) Noise nuisance could be addressed by use of a noise limiter, and noise that could be heard on the street would not necessarily constitute a noise nuisance. Officers had not visited a particular dwelling in response to a noise complaint to determine if the noise complained about constituted a nuisance as measured from within the dwelling. 11

12 (viii) The chicken seller who was operating outside The Tudor Rose without a licence had been prosecuted, and had been issued with a fixed penalty notice. Mr Page stated that he was being prosecuted on health and safety grounds, and confirmed that his presence outside venues would attract large groups coming out from the premises. (ix) The letter from The Neighbours of the Green had been ed to him, he had spoken to the resident, and he had forwarded the letter to the Licensing Team on the day he received the . (x) The notes set out on Page 145 of the report referred to notes made by officers when they attended the premises, and there was a reference in the 18 th January notes to doors to the premises being open. (xi) He had worked in the Council s Noise Team since November 2012, and in his present role since November Presentation on behalf of the Respondent Incident Outside the Premises Mr Dadds stated that the present case was originally founded on an application by the Police in relation to a serious incident of crime and disorder. He noted that Mr Rankin was going to refer to three incidents on the night of 17 th and 18 th May 2014 before it was realised by both parties that part of the CCTV evidence shown to the Sub Committee related to an incident that occurred in May of Therefore, the Sub Committee was only looking at two incidents, including the incident involving the youths across the road from the premises, for which there was no causal connection to The Tudor Rose. He reminded the Sub Committee that the person shown in the CCTV images relating to that incident was dressed in such a manner that he would have been refused entry to The Tudor Rose. Mr Dadds stated that, having spoken to the nearby restaurant owner, he had been advised that approximately 40% of the population in that area were Somalian and that the Somalian community as a whole were celebrating Somalia Independence Day. Consequently, there were many people out and about celebrating Somalia Independence Day. There was no evidence to suggest that the youths involved in the incident were associated with The Tudor Rose, and that the onus was on the Police to prove the link that the youths had been to the premises. The Sub Committee had not been shown any CCTV indicating that the individual concerned was a patron of the premises, and, given his attire, he could not have been a patron of The Tudor Rose as he would not have been admitted. Stabbing outside Peri Peri Chicken Mr Dadds then referred to the stabbing at the chicken shop, noting that this incident and the other stabbing to which he had referred, were the two incidents of serious crime and disorder referred to in the Police application for review of the premises. He stated that there had been many references to various breaches of the licence conditions, such as letting persons enter the premises after last entry time. However, serious as these breaches were, they did not amount to an undermining of the licensing objectives such that they merited revocation of the premises licence. Mr Dadds stated that the parties would not be here today, and the premises licence would not have been suspended for the last 28 days, simply on the breaches of the licence conditions referred to by the Police. He proposed that a more proportionate 12

13 way of dealing with such breaches would be by way of a sanction, and that the premises had already had its licence suspended for 28 days. Mr Dadds then referred to Page 23, and the acceptance by the Police that the person involved in the first stabbing incident had never been to The Tudor Rose. [At this point, Mr Rankin stated that it had never been accepted by the Police that the person involved had never been to The Tudor Rose. It was accepted that the individual concerned had said that he was going to The Tudor Rose]. Mr Dadds continued, stating that the certificate seeking the review was incorrect when it said that the individual concerned was a patron of The Tudor Rose. Further, no mention had been at this hearing to the suggestions in the certificate that there had been a dispute about cash takings by The Tudor Rose in relation to the Somali Independence Day function, or about drug dealing. In fact, there had been very little evidence presented to the Sub Committee regarding matters set out in the certificate. Regarding the incidents referred to by the Police in their evidence, these were simply two incidents that occurred in the area involving persons who were not customers of The Tudor Rose. Mr Dadds stated that the Somali Independence Day function at The Tudor Rose that particular night comprised a dinner dance at 15 a ticket, and that it was not realistic to suggest that the persons involved in the incidents captured on CCTV were intending to attend a dinner dressed in the clothes they were seen wearing. Further, that there were no witness statements supporting the contention that the persons involved in the stabbings were going to, or had been, at The Tudor Rose. The only statement that suggested that one of the victims was going to The Tudor Rose comprised a hearsay statement by a friend of the victim who had heard from someone else that was where the victim was going. Police Intelligence and Granting of TEN Applications In relation to the intelligence that the Police had, Mr Dadds asked why the Police had not asked for a voluntary closure, as had been done in the past, and which the premises had agreed to implement. It was his contention that the event, attended by customers of The Tudor Rose s, had proceeded without anything happening to undermine the licensing objectives. He said that the Police had alleged that previous behaviour by the premises showed a complete disregard for the licensing objectives and, that it was apparent from the papers before the Sub Committee that the Police were really gunning for the premises. Mr Dadds then referred to the number of TENs until 5.00am and 6.00am that had been granted in the last two years without objection by the Police, and the admission by the Police that they would be duty bound to object to such applications if they believed that granting the applications would undermine the licensing objectives. He noted that this would be the same for the Council s Environmental Health Team, who would also be duty bound to object if they felt that the licensing objectives would be undermined if the applications were to be granted. Stabbing Outside Peri Peri Chicken Regarding the stabbing that took in the vehicle outside the Peri Peri Chicken shop, Mr Dadds stated that Pages 36 and 37 of the report, which detailed the incident, did not refer to whether the persons involved were visiting the Peri Peri Chicken or The Tudor Rose. He stated that, based on information he had received, the persons involved in the stabbing were visiting Peri Peri Chicken Shop, and not The Tudor 13

14 Rose. He said that it might be that the Police intelligence regarding drug dealing that was referred to in the Police Certificate that accompanied the original review application was correct, but related to activities that were occurring at the Chicken Shop. Further, that those involved may have said they were going to The Tudor Rose rather than admit that they were at the Chicken Shop on drug related business. He stated that the Police had a significant number of CCTV images that had not been shown to the Sub Committee, such as the individuals concerned arriving at Peri Peri Chicken, and that there had been no review of the Chicken Shop premises licence. He stated that the Police wished to attribute all the problems in the area to The Tudor Rose. He stated that that there was a history between the premises and the Police, and that there must have been a good relationship given the number of TENs that had been granted without objection. Mr Dadds then referred to the statement where it was said that the victim and those accompanying him had parked outside the Chicken Shop, and that it was their intention to go then to The Tudor Rose. He stated that this was very scant evidence on which to base an application for revocation of the premises licence, particularly as the Police had presented no other CCTV evidence of the vehicle arriving at the scene and what might have occurred before the stabbing took place. Noise and Other Matters Mr Dadds said that the nature of the Somali independence Day event was such that it amounted to no more than simply hiring a hall. He said that the Police had not provided sufficient evidence with the application accompanying the Police certificate authorising the review application, and the granting of the TENs without objection by the Police or Environmental Health spoke for itself. Regarding the representations by the Neighbours of the Green, the respondent had not seen or heard from the representative in person; and the premises had dealt directly with Environmental Health on noise complaints. He stated that the doors to the premises had closers and any noise heard outside the premises may have been because of doors being propped open. Further, that any noise breakout could not be heard in neighbouring premises, and no visits had been made by environmental officers to individual premises to check noise levels. In any event, any sound issues could be addressed by the use of noise limiters. Regarding the premises behind The Tudor Rose, many functions were held at these premises and their clientele was predominantly black. Therefore, it would be difficult to differentiate which premises patrons might be attending on any particular occasion. The Illegal Chicken Seller Regarding the illegal chicken seller who operated outside the premises, Mr Dadds stated that he was the reason for the slow dispersal of patrons from various premises, including The Tudor Rose. Therefore, he asked that the Council assist the premises and put an end to his illegal trading. CRIS & CAD Reports Mr Dadds then referred the Sub Committee to the CRIS and CAD reports, noting that two of the reports referred to incidents that happened nearly two years ago. He stated that it was a fact that incidents did occur at licensed premises. However, from January to May of 2013, there were no incidents, and several TENs had been granted. There was a complaint regarding car parking in May, but no offence had been committed. Regarding the firearms incident referred to on Page 182 of the 14

15 restricted pages, it was reported that the incident had, in fact, involved a children s soap gun. Consequently, it was nonsense for the Police to suggest that the premises were associated with firearms. Referring to the Police Red Amber Green (RAG) system for classifying premises, Mr Dadds stated that it would appear that the premises had been classified Green for much of the time referred to in the CRIS and CAD reports, as evidenced by granting the TENs. From January to April 2014, there were no CAD reports of any significance. In May, there were the two incidents that had been referred to by the Police. Mr Dadds accepted that there had been breaches of the licence conditions. However, it was his contention that none of these breaches was so serious as to warrant revocation of the premises licence, and that none of the breaches were associated with crime and disorder. Last Entry Condition and Breaches of the Licence Conditions Mr Dadds went on to say that, given the nature of clientele who frequented The Tudor Rose, the management were finding it difficult to adhere to the 1.00am last entry condition, and had now used its allocation of TENs for the year in an effort to cater for its patrons. When raising the difficulties this condition presented at a meeting with the Police, the Police response had been to say that they would not agree to an extension and to leave applying to the Sub Committee for a variation of the condition for another six months of clear TENs. Mr Dadds said that this did not excuse letting people in after 1.00m in breach of the Last Entry condition, but neither was it a reason to revoke the licence. Regarding the number of offences quoted by the Police, Mr Dadds referred the Sub Committee to Mendip District Council v Glastonbury Festivals Ltd. [2003] LLR 90 in which had been held by the High Court that numerous breaches over a whole weekend constituted one offence and not several, as was suggested by the 63 breaches referred to by the Police. Further, the premises had never been prosecuted for beaches of its conditions. In addition, of those entering the premises after 1.00am, many of these were patrons who had been in the smoking area and who were re-entering after going out for a cigarette. CCTV The next issue addressed by Mr Dadds was the withholding of CCTV images by the premises management on his advice. Mr Dadds stated that, given the long period of CCTV recordings requested by the Police, and the fact that there were 42 CCTV cameras covering the premises, it was appropriate for the Police, given the amount of personal data involved, to submit Form 3022, as discussed. Because the premises licence had been suspended and no conditions were in place, the premises operator, as data controller, had to receive Form 3022 before the CCTV could be lawfully released. Mr Dadds proposed that the request would not have been lawful in any event, given the number of CCTV recordings requested. The premises management had since reviewed the CCTV recordings and could confirm that the premises were not over the capacity allowed on the night of the TEN in question. If the Police were to complete Form 3022, the CCTV recordings would be provided and this would show that there was less than 499 persons on the premises. Further, that there was no requirement in law, under Section 29 of the Data Protection Act, to provide the CCTV images requested; that Section 29 provided an exemption from prosecution to allow the release of information to the Police pursuant to the investigation of crime and the apprehension of offenders. In this instance, the Police wanted the CCTV to count the number of persons entering the premises. 15

16 In response to a question, Mr Dadds stated that, as the premises licence was suspended at the time, there was no condition regarding the release of the CCTV as the event in question was a TEN. There was nothing to indicate that Ms James, as DPS, did not wish to cooperate with the Police, and that the LBE CCTV that had been shown to the Sub Committee would have been provided on the submission of Form 3022 to the Council by the Police. Mr Dadds then referred the Sub Committee to information provided by the Freedom of Information Commission, which had issued a news report on the provision of CCTV and how model licence conditions requiring the supply of CCTV did not accord with the provisions of the Data Protection Act and may contravene the requirements of the European Data Protection Directive. Mr Dadds stated the reason the Sub Committee was here was to consider matters of serious crime and disorder as set out in the certificate, and not to consider issues of CCTV, which, although important, were not relevant. The two incidents referred to in the certificate, and the number of TENs that had been granted were relevant. Further, that there was no causal connection between the incidents and The Tudor Rose. As mentioned, the first incident involved a person who, given the way he was dressed, would not have been admitted to the premises and, therefore, was not a customer of the Tudor Rose. Moreover, that the other incident appeared to relate to persons frequenting the Peri Peri Chicken. Mr Dadds then invited Mr Nigel Charlton, Licensing Consultant, to address the Sub Committee Presentation by Nigel Charlton Mr Charlton stated that he had been the Licensing Sergeant in Ealing borough and was very familiar with the area. He stated that there was a huge Somali population in that part of the borough and it was part of Somali culture to stand in the street. He stated that there were about six or seven Somali cafes in the area of the premises, and there were issues of prostitution and gangs of Somalis who hung around the streets and at the rear of premises selling Khat and dealing drugs, whether or not The Tudor Rose was open. Consequently, the area was one that attracted robberies and violence, which could not be attributed to The Tudor Rose. Mr Dadds then invited Ms Ursula James, DPS of The Tudor Rose, to address the Sub Committee. Presentation by Ms Ursula James Ms James said that there were always Somali people present on the streets in the area and many were involved in selling drugs, which they did around the back streets. She and Ms Williams had raised this matter at several Ealing Council Ward Forum meetings and had referred the matter to the Police. The Tudor Rose had put gates around the entire building to prevent drug dealing taking place on the steps to The Tudor Rose. She said that the people dealing drugs were not her customers, and that the manager of nearby premises had told her on the afternoon before the stabbings occurred that there were a great many people from different areas coming into the area and that he had closed his premises as he was concerned about what might happen. Ms James said that there was always people and noise in the area, whether The Tudor Rose was open or closed. In addition, she had asked the Police to remove the chicken seller as he caused problems for the premises. Both she and Ms Williams 16