Agenda Template

L
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE
Friday 24 April 2015 at 2.30 pm
MINUTES
PRESENT:
Councillor Linda Bray, Councillor Jane Edbrooke and Councillor
Saleha Jaffer
APOLOGIES:
ALSO PRESENT:
Action
required by
1
ELECTION OF CHAIR
MOVED by Councillor Linda Bray, SECONDED by Councillor
Saleha Jaffer and,
RESOLVED: That Councillor Jane Edbrooke be elected as Chair of
the meeting.
2
DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS
None.
3
LICENSING APPLICATIONS FOR THE GRANT / REVIEW OF A
PREMISES LICENCE
Special circumstances justifying urgent consideration
An application for a Summary/Expedited review under Section 53A
(of the Licensing Act 2003) was submitted to Lambeth Council on
23 April 2015 in respect of the Premises Licence held. On receipt
of a valid Summary Review application the Licensing Authority
must, within 48 hours, consider whether it is necessary to take any
interim steps pending determination of the review of the premises
licence. The Sub-Committee has been convened for the purpose of
settling what if any interim steps may be necessary. The Authority
must then undertake the full review within 28 days of receipt of the
application.
The Chair is of the opinion that although the meeting has not been
convened with at least five clear days’ notice, it should proceed
now as a matter of urgency to consider the expedited review
because of the special circumstances of the need to comply with
the statutory requirements of the Licensing Act 2003.
This hearing will be conducted as a normal hearing but the
outcomes will be an interim measure pending a full review. The
options that can be taken at this expedited review hearing are as
follows:
 Modification of the conditions of the premises licence;
 Exclusion of the sale of alcohol by retail from the scope of the
licence;
 Removal of the designated premises supervisor from the licence;
and,
 Suspension of the licence.
3a
FRIDGE BAR BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOOR 1 TOWN HALL
PARADE BRIXTON HILL LONDON SW2 1RW
Presentation by the Licensing Officer
The Licensing Officer explained the process for considering the
request for the summary licence review which had been submitted
by the Metropolitan Police. The Sub-Committee would consider
whether any interim measures were appropriate pending a full
review of the licence within 28 days of the request for the summary
licence review. The options available to the Sub-Committee were
set out on page 4 of the agenda papers. These were:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
to modify the conditions of the premises licence;
to exclude the sale of alcohol by retail from the scope of
the licence;
to remove the designated premises supervisor;
to suspend the licence; and,
to take no action.
The Licensing Officer then confirmed:

The application had been received on 23 April 2015
regarding the Fridge Bar following an incident on 19 April
2015. This involved the manager, supervisor and members
of the public.

It was understood that excessive force had been used
against members of the public perpetrated by members of
staff at the premises.

The application was received at 11:24 on 23 April 2015.

Superintendent Neil Paton had informed that he had been
of the opinion that the premises were associated with
serious crime and serious disorder. This application could
be found on page 13-17 of the agenda papers.

The Police have asked for the premises licence to be
suspended.

The premises licence allowed various forms of regulated
entertainment including the supply of alcohol.

The premises was open twenty-four hours a day, seven
days a week.

Photos of the premises, a map and an email sent from Mr
Dadds had been circulated to the committee.
Presentation by the Applicant
The applicant, Sergeant Tony Jarred and PC Sandell informed the
Sub-Committee that:

The Police had submitted an application for an expedited
review emanating from a serious incident occurring late on
the Saturday night until early Sunday morning.

Two males had been injured during the incident.

Upon initial investigation, it had been understood that the
perpetrators were members of staff working at the
premises.

Possible Police measures were considered, but an
investigation indicated that one of the perpetrators involved
in the incident was listed as a director at the business. This
was understood to be Mr Daley, but he was also known as
Mr Irvin.

Lambeth’s CCTV operator had informed the Police about
the incident. There had not been a call made from the
premises staff to the Police.

The CCTV operator had informed that he observed
somebody having been struck with a torch.

Two male victims had been hit, struck and punched.

Two victims were taken to hospital with head injuries.

One individual had been hit with a torch a number of times.

There had been a pattern of behaviour in relation to
incidences occurring at the premises.

There had been a meeting with the Premises Licence
Holder and the Designated Premises Supervisor in January
2015. Assurances had been given that relevant safeguards
would be put in place to promote the licensing objectives.
However, it appeared that there had been staff members
appointed at the premises carrying out SIA licensed
activities without a SIA licence.

There appeared to have been a staff member committing a
serious offence. This was considered to be so severe that
the Sub-Committee was recommended to suspend the
licence in the interim before the licence would be reviewed
at a full review hearing.
In response to questions from Members, Sergeant Tony Jarred
and PC Sandell informed the Sub-Committee that:

One of the alleged perpetrators, Mr Daley, had since been
charged with Actual Bodily Harm (ABH).

Another alleged perpetrator was being investigated for
Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH).

In the recent past, there had been serious incidences of
GBH, ABH, common assaults, other assaults and general
order issues involving the premises.

There had been a number of incidents where door staff at
the premises had alleged that they had suffered from
assaults.

My Daley had previously not been allowed to enter the
premises, or be employed by or involved in the
management of the business due to a condition placed on
the premises licence in 2008.

Mr Daley was known to the Police and Police Officers
recognised him from CCTV.

The Police were still obtaining statements from all the
people involved in the incident.

Mr Daley had been charged by the Police.

When the altercation transferred outdoors, staff at the
premises continued to have been involved in the incident.

Police were looking to arrest two more individuals in
relation to the incident.

The incident had started in the basement area of the
premises and people were ejected from the area. Some
CCTV evidence had been provided, however, it could not
be discerned from the limited footage how the altercation
transferred from the basement to the outside of the
premises.

People had been ejected earlier in the evening and
remained outside the premises in an area commonly used
for smoking. This had been where the incident escalated
and there had been fighting near the bus stop on the
pavement.

Mr Daley’s presence at the premises was not in
contradiction of previously agreed conditions in 2008 as
there had been a variation of the premises licence in 2012.

One door supervisor was understood to have had his SIA
licence expire in July 2014; this was pending confirmation.
However, the registry database for SIA licence holders
appeared to support this. It was understood that there were
other staff members carrying out the role of an SIA licenced
staff member but were not SIA licenced.

In comparison to other venues, the level of volatile
incidences occurring at the venue was high. This was why
police were invited to a meeting with the Designated
Premises Supervisor and the Premises Licence Holder
regarding how issues could be resolved. There had been
some assurances made and actions agreed to ensure that
there would be an improvement; however, there had been a
few incidences since, including the incident on 19 April
2015. This was a serious incident and it also involved staff
at the premises and a director of the company.
Presentation by the Licence Holder
The licence holder’s representative, Mr David Dadds informed the
Sub-Committee that:

This was an incident that occurred at premises but this was
not due to members of staff.

Staff members had been ejecting someone and when they
got outside, the doorman believed that someone may have
had a knife.

Steps were taken to ensure that there was no danger to
other members of staff or members of the public.

Staff members were not the aggressors of the incident.
They were simply over-protecting themselves.

This had been an incident that had escalated.

The Designated Premises Supervisor had said it was a
serious allegation.

Door staff and Mr Daley would be suspended until a full
investigation was completed.

In relation to the door supervisor who may not be registered
as an SIA licenced person, the Designated Premises
Supervisor had given the former registration number of the
individual but not the newly allocated number. The
individual was still registered as an SIA licenced person.

In relation to the other incidences alleged by the applicant,
there had not been any other incidences cited in the report
other than the incident on 19 April 2015.

The incident on 19 April 2015 resulted in some serious
injuries. The matter had arisen in the premises before
escalating outside.

The door supervisor had believed that someone had a
knife. In relation to the striking movement towards the
individual, this was performed to disarm the person with a
knife.

As the incident had occurred, it would be suggested that
the next proposed steps that should be taken would be the
ones set out by the Licensing Consultant found in the
additional papers submitted to the Sub-Committee.

In relation to the past issues with the premises, in 2006
there had been an incident that had occurred at the
premises. The premises licence was subsequently revoked.

After an appeal hearing the district judge allowed for the
licence to remain in place for Ms Asha (the Designated
Premises Supervisor). A condition was placed that Mr
Daley would not be allowed into the premises. Ms Asha had
built positively upon the licence she obtained in 2008.

The licence was then varied with the consent of the Police
in August 2012 which allowed Mr Daley back into the
premises.

This incident was the first complaint of Mr Daley since he
had been allowed back into the premises.

Although this was an unsubstantiated allegation, as a
precautionary measure, the premises licence holder would
remove Mr Daley from being allowed back into the
premises.

A suspension of the premises licence of twenty-eight days
would extinguish the business.

The proportionate approach would be to remove Mr Daley
and recruit a new door supervisor company.

The search policy at the premises needed to be reviewed
and would be done alongside the Independent Licensing
Consultant who would be retained as a consultant.

A voluntary closure period of fourteen days was proposed
so that all processes could be reviewed and changes put
into place.

There would be a full review in twenty-eight days and the
Police may report back to the Sub-Committee with no
further evidence.

This would be a proportionate approach to the concerns
raised.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Dadds informed the
Sub-Committee that:

Some aspects of the violence were due to the heat of the
moment. Mr Daley had reported that he took reasonable
steps.

Mr Daley had informed that he was no longer director at the
business and he believed that he acted proportionately and
in self-defence.

Although a condition had been placed in 2008 to no longer
allow Mr Daley back into the premises, he was later
permitted to come back in 2012.

Although Mr Daley had been found guilty of a matter
previously did not mean he was guilty of this incident.
The Designated Premises Supervisor, Ms Afia Asha informed the
Sub-Committee that:

All customers and visitors and would be searched and bags
would be examined.

There were female door supervisors who searched female
customers and visitors

An electronic wand would be used to check for hidden
metal objects.

All customers would be both physically checked and
checked using the electronic wand.

This process was robust.
In response to questions from Members, Ms Asha and Mr Dadds
informed the Sub-Committee that:

The incident had originally occurred in the basement of the
premises.

There were two groups of men involved. The security staff
had separated one of the groups and called for additional
help from security. The group was then removed from the
building by security.

The group was then followed by the second group of men
and when outside there was pushing and shoving.

The security staff further separated the two groups outside
the premises.

The two groups were ejected from the area and were not
pursued further by security staff.

The two groups had an altercation by the bus stop and
security stood down. The second group left the area.

The initial group then asked for re-entry into the premises
but were not allowed in.

One individual, detailed to have a tattoo on his face, wanted
to come into the premises and subsequently one of the
door staff members was physically assaulted.

No one had called the Police as the incident happened
extremely quickly and a staff radio was lost in the melee.

Radios would usually be used in this type of incident.

A meeting had been held with Hannah Eldrige from the Met
Police towards the start of the year. The start of a year was
usually a period where some people attempted to retaliate
to ongoing conflicts.

There had been some serious incidences occurring at the
premises during the New Year period. For example, a staff
member had been attacked with a large knife.

She had not been asked about body cameras at the
meeting with Hannah Eldrige.

She explained at the meeting that the premises did not
usually deal with conflicts between patrons, however the
incidents had happened within a concentrated period of
time.

It had been suggested that an arch be put in place,
however the idea had been later negated due to possible
further criminal activity as a result of its existence.

Some people did things that they may regret and Mr Daley
had regretted his actions in the past. He had served his
sentence previously and the Police had accepted his
rehabilitation.

It had been almost ten years since the incident in 2006
involving Mr Daley.

Nothing had been proven against Mr Daley thus far in
relation to the incident on 19 April 2015.

Mr Daley had not recently come under critical Police
attention until the incident on 19 April 2015.

When internal staff radio did not work, headphones would
be installed so that staff members could adequately
communicate.

Ms Asha was part of the Night Time Economy Forum, the
Safer Lambeth Steering group and a member of the BCRP.

Ms Asha had a good relationship with the Police.

Ms Asha was on holiday with her children during the time of
the incident and would not be on holiday during the time the
premises was under review.

Ms Asha and staff members at the premises had
cooperated with Police, had provided CCTV evidence and
had assisted in arresting one of the individuals involved in
the incident.
Members then recalled Sergeant Tony Jarred and PC Sandell to
address matters arising. Sergeant Tony Jarred and PC Sandell
informed the Sub-Committee that:

No knife was found in relation to the incident.

No firearms were found in relation to the incident.

An expedited review would only ever be requested by
Police when issues occurring at venues were considered to
be serious in nature.
Adjournment and Decision
At 3:15pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together
with the legal advisor and clerk to deliberate in private. The SubCommittee had heard and considered representations from
Sergeant Jarred, PC Sandell, Mr Dadds and Ms Asha.
Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open
to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate.
The Sub-Committee decided to grant the review, suspend the
licence and amend the conditions of the licence for the following
reasons:
This was an application by the police for an expedited review of
premises at the Fridge Bar. The police related an incident of
violence following the ejection of the customers from the premises.
Once outside, those people were allegedly assaulted by the door
staff and Mr Daley who is one of the directors of the company
holding the premises licence. The investigation was still ongoing.
The police stated that Mr Daley had previously been removed from
the premises licence and was excluded from the premises as a
licence condition. There were other issues as well, such as the
member of the door staff whose SIA badge had expired in July
2014. The police also believed that there were other people acting
in an SIA capacity who were not licenced to do so. There were also
concerns that there was no call to the police from the premises
regarding the incident and it had been reported to them from the
Lambeth CCTV operator.
The police made references to other incidents, some said to
involve Mr Daley, others said to involve staff at the premises.
However, there was little detail before the Sub-Committee in
relation to those.
The Sub-Committee also heard from David Dadds on behalf of the
premises licence holder. There was no dispute whatsoever, that
the incident took place. However, it was said that Mr Daley
believed that one of the victims had a knife and he had acted in
self-defence and that of others. The question of whether or not he
did believe that and whether or not he used excessive force were a
matter for the court.
With regard to the doorperson whose licence had lapsed, the SubCommittee was told that the wrong licence number had been
provided to the police by the Designated Premises Supervisor but
that he would be happy to provide the correct number to the police
to show that he was licenced and that this was simply a mistake.
Mr Dadds pointed out that both individuals were taken to the
hospital but were discharged.
Mr Dadds pointed out that Mr Daley had been convicted of an
offence in 2006 when he was involved with the premises. The
licence was ultimately revoked and an appeal was allowed and one
of the conditions was that Mr Daley not be associated with the
premises. Afia Asha and her company took over in 2008.
In August 2012, an application for a minor variation was made so
as to allow Mr Daley to work at the premises. Mr Dadds said the
Police did not object to this variation. Mr Dadds says that this
incident was the first complaint received in relation to him. Mr
Dadds told the Sub-Committee that a suspension of 28 days would
destroy the business and he offered up various conditions
including the further removal of Mr Daley from the management of
the premises and a review of the various policies and a voluntary
closure for two weeks.
When asked why no one from the premises called the police, Ms
Asha said everything had happened very quickly and that their
BCRP radio had been lost in the melee. When asked why no
decision to use body cameras had been made previously, Ms Asha
said that she had a meeting with Hannah Eldrige in the new year
following an incident where a staff member had been attacked by
someone wielding a machete. Ms Asha said however that she
wasn’t asked about body cameras at this meeting.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered all of the options open to
it. Given that this incident occurred it was quite clear that taking no
action was not an option. The Sub-Committee did not consider
that the exclusion of the sale of alcohol by retail was necessary as
there was no suggestion that drinking played any part in this
incident. The Sub-Committee found Ms Asha to be credible and
honest and willing to engage with responsible authorities and noted
that this incident took place when she herself was on holiday. The
Sub-Committee did not think that it was necessary to remove her
as the Designated Premises Supervisor. However, the authority did
consider some period of suspension to be necessary; however, in
light of the lack of evidence of other incidents involving the
premises the Sub-Committee could not be certain that suspension
pending the full review was necessary. The Sub-Committee did
however accept that there needed to be some time in which the
premises were closed so as to allow reviews of its policies to take
place and the Sub-Committee was satisfied that fourteen days was
the appropriate period of time in which to suspend the licence. The
Sub-Committee was also imposing the conditions proposed by the
licence holder and these were:
1. Ralph Daley is not to be involved in any way in the management or
operation of the premises. Ralph Daley is not to enter the premises
in any capacity.
2. The premises licence holder shall appoint a new SIA approved
contractor to be approved by the Police and the number of door
supervisors to be employed at anytime is likewise to be agreed
with the police.
3. All door supervisors shall be equipped with body cameras which
are to be operating correctly at all times that licensable activities
are taking place. The Premises licence holder shall provide the
police or the licensing authority with any such footage on request.
4. The premises license holder shall review the existing search policy
which is to include training and instructions to staff. The policy is to
be provided to the police and the licensing authority within fourteen
days.
The premises are to review its risk assessment for promotions,
Disc Jockeys and artists. The process must ensure a clear line of
communication with the police to reduce the potential for violence
and the outcome of the review is to be provided to the police and
the licensing authority within fourteen days. The premises is to
carry out a full review of its existing promotions events and Disc
Jockeys in order to identify patterns of incidents or associations of
disorder with regard to particular events or dates and the outcome
of that review is to be provided to the police and to the licensing
authority within fourteen days. For the avoidance of doubt this
decision is to take effect immediately.
RESOLVED: To grant the review, suspend the licence and amend
the conditions of the licence.
Announcement of Decision
Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those
present of the decision to grant the review, suspend the licence
and amend the conditions of the licence.
The meeting ended at 4:20pm
CHAIR
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE
Tuesday 12 May 2015
Date of Despatch: Tuesday 28 April 2015
Contact for Enquiries: Nazyer Choudhury
Tel: 020 7926 0028
Fax: (020) 7926 2361
E-mail: nchoudhury@lambeth.gov.uk
Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk
The action column is for officers' use only and does not form a part of the formal
record.