Licensing Act Sub-Committee - Tuesday 5 November 2024, 11:30am - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Licensing Act Sub-Committee
Tuesday, 5th November 2024 at 11:30am 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.

 

UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINT COMMITTEE WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings. 


The webcast should start automatically for you, and you can jump to specific points of interest within the meeting by selecting the agenda point or the speaker that you are interested in, simply by clicking the tabs above this message. You can also view any presentations used in the meeting by clicking the presentations tab. We hope you find the webcast interesting and informative.

 

Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.

 

At the conclusion of a meeting, the webcast can take time to 'archive'.  You will not be able to view the webcast until the archiving process is complete.  This is usually within 24 hours of the meeting.

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Good morning, we will move to the first item on the agenda which is the election of chair.
Can I have any nominations please?
I propose Councillor Blakemore.
I second.
Thank you, Councillor Blakemore has been elected chair.
Please can you read the description for me?
Thank you.
Good morning and welcome to the meeting of the Licensing Act subcommittee.
This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.
For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the chamber.
For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones
are used so viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting.
I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under
consideration it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers
with respect. So turning to today's agenda do we have any declarations of
interest? And declarations of lobbying know there's a form in the pack to be
completed and handed in at the end. So item number four we are here to for the
application for review of a premises license
in respect of the star in.
To consider the application under part three,
section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003,
made by D .I. Wiles on behalf of Kent Police
in respect of the star in St. Mary in the Marsh,
Romley Marsh, the Licensing Subcommittee
must determine the outcome for the application.
So this is an adjournment from a couple of weeks ago.
And we will hear first of all from John Bickle, licensing officer,
then from the police and then from the license holder.
And if any questions can be directed through me
after we've heard from all three. Thank you.
Thank you. Good morning, everybody.
The committee is asked to consider the review application
for the premises license.
When considering the application,
The Committee must ensure they fully promote the licensing objectives.
The Committee is obliged to have regard to the revised National Section 182 guidance
and the Council's own licensing policy.
The Licensing Subcommittee is asked to note the contents of the report and determine the
application and the options for determining the application are set out in Section 5.
The Licensing Act 2003 provides that the sale or supply of alcohol on and off the premises
and other license law activities must be authorized by a premises license. A premises license
holder must comply with the four licensing objectives, the prevention of crime and disorder,
public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.
The Star Inn has held a premises license for many years. After being closed for a period
of time, it was sold in September 2023 and purchased by Ms. Katie Duffy. An incomplete
application to transfer the premises license was received on the 21st of November 2023
with subsequent emails sent requesting additional missing paperwork. Licensing officers were
informed that the premises was now occupied and that an incomplete application had been
received. Ms. Stuffy was informed on the 1st of the 12th, 23 that until the necessary paperwork
was completed, licensable activities could not take place. Licensing officers visited
the premises in December 2023 due to no contact with Ms Duffy and found the premises open
with unauthorised sounds of alcohol taking place. A designated premises supervisor was
sourced and paperwork completed during the visit. Further visits were made to obtain
the necessary paperwork from Ms Duffy to transfer the premises licence. Ms Duffy has advised
that she would be applying for her personal licence and DPS. We have recently cancelled
her personal license application due to missing paperwork and no contact.
Since Ms Duffy has held the premises license, two designated premises supervisors have removed
themselves with Antoinette Burgess being the current DBS and the current premises license
can be seen at Appendix 1.
Kent Police have submitted the request to review the premises license which can be seen
at Appendix 2.
The review request is in respect of the licensing objectives, the prevention of crime and disorder
and public safety.
The licensing authority must review the premises license where it is alleged in an application
for review by a responsible authority or an interested party that any of the licensing
objectives are being undermined.
Relevant representations are those which are relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives
are made by a responsible authority or an interested party within the prescribed period
are made by the holder of the premises licence in response to an application for a review
of the said premises, have not been withdrawn and, if made by an interested party, that
they are not in the opinion of the relevant licensing authority frivolous of exatius.
It is recommended that the Licensing Committee determine the application for review and decide
what, if any, actions are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives
in relation to the starry.
The Licensing Committee, in considering an application for review, must have regard to
the adopted Statement of Licence Policy, Section 182 guidance issued by the Secretary of State
and any relevant representations made by those directly affected and any other information
presented at the hearing.
This hearing has been required by the Licensing Act 2003 because a review application was
made by a responsible authority, Chem Police.
This representation has also been received from an interested party and this can be seen
at Appendix 3.
And the Licensing Subcommittee has the following options.
Take no action against the premises license, issue an informal warning letter, add conditions
to the license, exclude a licensable activity, remove the DPS, suspend the license for a
period of up to three months or revoke the license.
and the committee is asked to know that it may not add condition, add conditions or revoke the license,
merely because it considers it desirable to do so.
The committee must only consider evidence that relates to the four licensing objectives.
Any conditions added must promote the licensing objectives.
Thank you.
Thank you. If we could now hear from PC Alistair Pringle.
Good morning, Madam Chair and Councillors.
Yeah, my name is Alistair Pringle.
I'm a police licensing officer with Kent Police.
Kent Police request a review of the premises license
at the Star Inn, having followed a staged approach
to licensing enforcement.
Kent Police have the following concerns.
Breaches of conditions relating to the premises failing
to supply CCTV on two separate occasions which obstructed
police investigations.
Poor management and timekeeping in respect
of the licensed hours.
Allowing a drunk individual to remain on the premises.
failing to support a police prosecution
and evidenced unauthorized sales of alcohol.
All of these concerns will show
that the licensing objectives of
prevention of crime disorder and public
safety have been significantly undermined,
and there is little faith that these
objectives will be sufficiently promoted.
In the future.
In February 2024,
folks in and High District Council
received information from two separate
complainants to suggest that the star
been opening into the early hours
and as late as five or six AM.
Kent police were concerned,
however it's not unusual to receive such
intelligence and not be able to validate it.
The subsequent events.
The evidence of sales beyond hours,
a drunk female being ejected from the
premises following an assault.
At nearly 3 AM provides significant
weight to that intelligence.
You will have read two statements by two police officers that attended the Star Inn,
and they are within your pack between pages 25 and 28.
They attended the Star Inn in the early hours of the 15th of June 2024.
Both officers made reference to a female and her levels of intoxication.
They located her in a drunken state causing a nuisance to a direct neighbour.
so drunk that she urinated herself and could not effectively communicate.
One of the officers completing one of the statements, PC Janser,
within his statement referred to his 19 years of experience within policing.
He stated that Katie Duffy, the licence holder, seemed hesitant with her account,
but when pressed she said that she knew that female.
In his statement, he states that in his opinion the license holder was not telling the truth
about how that female was allowed to become so intoxicated, that her responses were guarded
and somewhat misleading.
It was clear that a disturbance had taken place inside the star inn and it was likely
that more than one person had been assaulted, with the caller to Kent please saying, she's
tried to attack everyone.
It's unlikely, in my opinion, that that female stopped
drinking alcohol at 22 .30 when alcohol sales seized out
that premises, given how she presented
in terms of her intoxication.
The police investigation was hindered, firstly,
because the license holder declined
to support that prosecution, but secondly, and more
concerningly, because footage from the starring
could not be obtained.
There was only one camera which activated on movement in the same way a doorbell camera would,
covering more of the till area than any public area.
It's only held a couple of days worth of footage, so no footage provided could be provided to cover
that day in question. These points were discovered during a follow -up meeting at the premises on the
21st of June. 2024 and involved the
license holder, bar manager,
police and council licensing officers.
At the same time at that meeting,
police requested to view till receipts.
And these were shown to evidence several
unauthorized sales of alcohol on various days.
The latest being at 2358 hours.
Within the pack on pages 29 through to 31, you can see images of those till receipts
viewed.
And I'll draw your attention to the lower half of page 31, which shows a time check
receipt to confirm the till was displaying the correct time on that day of meeting.
In our view, that shows or supports that more likely than not, the other till timings were
An unauthorised licenceable activity is a serious offence which can attract a severe
penalty of a custodial period of up to six months and or an unlimited fine.
This was fully explained and a written warning issued by Kent Police.
Whilst we understand that mistakes can be made, we would expect premises to quickly
learn from such mistakes and show immediate improvements.
Kent police were told that the drunk female ejected on that night was in fact a customer
and that drunk individuals were allowed to remain on the premises to sober up over concerns
that they might come to harm due to the rural location. Direction and guidance was provided
to address this. The Star Inn was told that there needed to be immediate tightening of
that events which could be described as potentially lock -ins were forbidden,
that allowing customers to remain at the premises after hours
or allowing them to sober up must cease immediately.
The license holder and then DPS, that's not the current DPS,
the police.
Reply to that warning and police
were told that the DPS was unaware
of the CCTV condition on the license.
And the license holder reassured
Ken police that there will be no
more breaches of licensing law.
On the 9th of August 2024,
the premises were found to be open
to the public at quarter past 11.
On that night, alcohol sales
should have ceased at 22 .30 and it should have been closed to the public at 23 .00.
Many persons on that the time of that visit had glasses full of alcoholic drinks
and whilst Mr Bicknell was in attendance the last order's bell was heard ringing in the background.
Persons were encouraged to leave.
Kent police remain concerned that on that night there was a blatant
disregard to the authorizations provided to the premises.
And it appeared that what can only be described as a haphazard
approach to the management with no valid explanation being
offered. A further investigation into unauthorized
license will activity at the premises was opened.
Kent police again requested CCTV not only for that night, but
the next.
and each Friday and Saturday for the two weekends prior.
In order to prove or disprove the notion that there was a continued and regular pattern
of the Star Inn opening beyond hours and likely, if open and operating, continuing to commit
the offence of conducting alcohol sales other than in accordance to an authorisation.
Despite the set severity and the previous
previous reassurance is given the star in
again failed to provide that CCTV as requested.
Despite several requests and reminders,
even with the offer of assistance,
should there be an issue,
the request was ignored.
This obstructed the investigation.
The license holder raised that she was
through a difficult personal matter and requested a face to face meeting which was agreed to.
This was held at the council offices with police and council licensing offices in attendance.
A summary which is police notes in respect to that meeting can be found on page 45.
Concerns were summarised at the start of the meeting and again police asked what the state
of play was with the premises providing the CCTV.
The response was that the license holder believed that the footage had been recording, the green
light was flashing, but it was un -recoverable.
Police asked the license holder when was it discovered that there was any issue with that
hard drive or that CCTV system and the license holder said that she could not remember.
When asked again what happened on the 26th of June when the premises was found operating
beyond its hours and why it appeared that so many customers had full drinks, the response
was it was spontaneous, it was a good night, it won't happen again.
Kent Police are concerned that footage was not supplied to us due to fears of self -incrimination.
The guarded responses to the officers attending on the night of the 15th June, the failing
to provide CCTV to police on two occasions, despite being told by the licence holder that
these matters were being taken seriously, that HAP has an approach to management, the
intelligence relating to late opening, all support the notion that adding conditions
to ensure the licensing objectives are promoted is not an option.
Kent Police asked the committee to consider how the objectives have been undermined, how
conditions attached to the premises license have been breached when coming to your determination.
Unfortunately in this case we see no other avenue than one of revocation.
This concludes the Kent Police representation.
Thank you.
Thank you PC Pringle.
Could we now hear from the license holder please?
Good morning.
Before I address the points raised by the relevant authority, can I just say on behalf
of Miss Duffy that she does appreciate that there has been failings in the past and she's
already taken a number of steps in order to address the issues that have been raised by
Kent Police and also the licensing authority.
But to address the specific concerns raised, the main incident being on the 15th of June
when the police received communication that there was a drunk female at the premises.
To put that into a wider context, there is a resident above the starry who was in a relationship with this female.
She wasn't a customer at the pub. She was there to see the gentleman who resides above the premises.
she was drinking above the premises, she wasn't drinking in the starting itself
and therefore there were no sales to a person who appeared to be intoxicated
throughout that night and given the timing of the call that night, this
This wasn't a drunken customer.
This is somebody that was lawfully within the premises
and with the permission of the resident.
And the staff at the premises did all they could
to secure her safety, as has been referred to.
They didn't want her wandering off
at that time in the morning in the state that she was.
And they were merely trying to assist the drunken female.
but at no time in relation to her did they breach their licensing conditions.
In relation to the allegations of assault by this intoxicated female,
that there were no official allegations made by any person
that they had been assaulted by this female
and the suggestion that Ms Duffy wasn't willing to support the prosecution
is just simply untrue
that there was no allegations made as such
When officers attended, they were taught of a female crime to attack everyone.
They bade terms with no specific allegations made.
Of course, you all know that the police have body -worn footage
and they don't need the support of anyone victim of a crime to pursue an allegation.
The case can be bought regardless of victim support, such as using the other woman's
footage of any allegations made by any individual.
And it simply wasn't the case, lads.
The license holder was not assisting the police.
It was a matter outside of their license with a private individual and not a customer.
and as I say the...
I don't know if my phone is affecting...
How is it?
Apologies.
I can't hear a fan.
Again, on the night of the 15th June, the CCTV was requested.
Now, as has already been alluded to, the CCTV on the 15th June wasn't sufficient.
that totally, exceptedly covered the area behind the bar
rather than any area where any such behaviour by this drunk female would have been captured
and there was issues as well, technical issues with the Biden -Massie CTP
but what was available was a critical element whatsoever to
Yes, apologies.
So it wasn't a deliberate refusal to provide CCTV, technical issues, it didn't cover the
area in question, it certainly didn't have any relevant footage of the incident that
the police required.
There was receipts provided by Mr Duffy when requested
because of the suspicion of after sales.
It again has confirmed that the latest being at 23 58.
Now at that time the premises was under the supervision
of a different DPS than the one that is currently managing the premises at the moment.
And these receipts were provided voluntarily by the stuff issues, we were trying to hide
the fact that there was after our sales, not until the early hours of the morning, the
last one was before midnight.
and these issues have been addressed.
These go back to June and the new DPS took a position in September
and since that time, with the new DPS, there has been a new CCTV system installed
that covers all of the public areas that need to be viewed by CCTV,
cameras where any member of the public can be seen. So again mistakes have been
made in the past they have been addressed and when CCTV has been
requested of Knights other than the 15th of June the same issues
regarding the technical issues as previously described were still causing difficulties.
Again, it wasn't a deliberate refusal to provide the CCTV, which is why the new CCTV system
has now been put in place.
I would make the point, although this is an advanced one, Ms Duffy herself, that it seems
the subsequent requests for CCTV
and even the CCTV requested in relation to the incident
on the 15th of June, I would suggest,
were outside of the licensing conditions
that the police have requested CCTV
in order to establish self -incrimination against Mustapha
as the police have already alluded to today's hearing
and that is not the purpose for why CCTV
is a mandatory licensing requirement.
It's not there for people to self incriminate
who have a right not to do so.
And again, this isn't something that Ms. Duffy
suggests took place.
It is merely a submission made on her behalf
that that should not be taken against her,
licensing conditions that require CCTV as well as protection of the public not to self
incriminate as to whether there are out of hours sales.
So I would suggest there has only been one legitimate request for CCTV on the night of
15th June where the police did have reasonable suspicion to suspect that events involved
and the license had taken place but of course the stuffy states that that was not the case
this was a private individual from the flat above.
Moving on to when officers attended on the 9th August late they attended at quarter past
eleven in the evening the premises still had a right to be open at that time with customers
finishing their drinks there is evidence from the officer that there were glasses
full which would give an inference at best that they were purchased after
hours however this is only an inference there there's no actual direct evidence
of after sales being made on the 9th of August and officers could have attended
could be made to conclusively establish whether after our sales had taken place, this did
not occur and the 10 police are merely asking for this hearing to conclude that after our
sales did occur on that instance alone and I suggest that that is not sufficient in this
case. The officer did witness the bell being rang to suggest last orders. That member of staff,
he wasn't a DPS holder, the member of staff no longer works at that establishment and
the stuff he says that there was no confirmation at all by any member of staff that last orders
were ran after quarter past eleven at night.
So she's not able to provide any further helpful information
in relation to that.
And that member of staff no longer works at premises
in any event and this stuffy does not know
why if that bell was rang, why that was.
In relation to the concerns raised by the licensing authority, which refers back to
December time, there were issues with regards to the application, but that was subsequently
granted and the premises was provided with a license and I suggest that that
can't possibly be held against this stuffy when considering the range of
options available today in relation to this particular review.
So going to the options available against the information that this hearing
has about the improvements that have been made to Starvin with a new
DPS now in a full -time permanent position who has lots of experience
working in this industry. UCC TV installed which does cover all of the
areas where the public can remain and Ms Duffy's commitment to working fully
cooperatively with the police and the licensing authority so that there are no further concerns
raised in the future. There are a number of different options to allow Ms Duffy to prove
what she is saying in the hearing today. It's not suggested at all that no action be taken,
Although we suggest no proof has been put forward of any breaches of the license, this
stuff it does certainly take on board that previous incidents have legitimately given
rise to concerns by the Kent Police and therefore we would suggest that an informal warning
letter be issued to Ms Duffy setting out fully the concerns of the police and the licensing
authority so that if there are any further incidences then this of course will be held
against Ms Duffy.
There don't appear to be any additional conditions that could be reasonably added to her current
license to address the concerns raised today and the current DPS took her position after
these incidences occurred so there should be no requirement to remove the current DPS
who has been in charge of implementing the corrections that were needed to the star rip.
Suspending the license would not allow Ms Duffy to demonstrate to the police and the licensing
authority that she is of course taking all of these matters seriously and doing all she can
to address these concerns and to revoke the license would be the absolute last resort
and the most extreme of measures when even if these allegations were proven it is suggested
that that would be too much of an extreme measure to take given the allegations that
have been made before the hearing today.
So my recommendation and suggestion to the committee today
is to issue an informal warning letter
recognizing that these concerns are still real and active,
it's particularly in relation to the police,
and to give Ms Duffy the opportunity to prove
that she is a responsible license holder.
Don't know if I could be of any further assistance at all.
Thank you, sir. Do either of my fellow councillors have any questions?
Just one if I may, because I don't know the layout of the pub.
So we have a chap, I'm guessing, living upstairs, and you're saying that I guess his girlfriend
possibly was upstairs drinking. Do they have direct access to the bar then, or do they
have a separate entrance.
Separate entrance.
So she would have come down and been allowed
to go into the main area, is that correct?
We ejected her, took her through the bar
and through the front door, but there's a normal
back passage, back door, and you go around to the front,
which is what is generally used by my residents.
You see them going through the bar that go round the back.
Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
So, you're saying she was upstairs drinking with her boyfriend.
How did she gain access to the downstairs?
She only gained access when we took her out.
When we ejected her from the building.
Was she in the main bar area?
No. She was upstairs.
She was screaming upstairs.
Yes.
That's why I went up to the ejector from the building.
So you went upstairs and ejected from the building?
Yes, my son, yes.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Shue.
Thank you.
So I'm just trying to clarify, was this sort of version explained to the police at the
I'm slightly unclear.
Apologies, was that directed at myself?
Well, to either, this is.
I'm not clear from the report that this was explained at the time,
that this person was visiting upstairs.
On attendance at the Star Inn,
we were told that that female was a customer by Katie Duffy.
And there was a suggestion that rather than intoxication,
that it was a medical issue in terms of some medication
that that female was taking.
But quite clearly, with the attending officers,
with their perspective of their encounter with Ms Duffy,
we weren't being told what we believed to be the truth
in respect of that link between the two policies.
I just have a couple of questions.
There's reference in the pack about the music license conditions also being breached.
Do we have any more detail on that?
Sorry.
Yes, music was playing as well at the time when I visited Parkour course past 11.
and there was some music playing as well as alcohol one show.
I didn't see any sales,
but there was certainly lots of alcohol around,
people having a good time in there.
Okay.
The other question,
I just want to check with my fellow cancers.
I think there is some body cam footage
of your visit on the 9th.
Do we want to see that?
No, we just think so.
Yes, yes, basically.
I think we need to exclude the public though for it.
Sorry, can we have a proposer to exclude the public?
Okay.
I just wanted to ask you how can we be confident?
There's been such a long ongoing series of incidents, shall we say.
How can we be confident?
I know you say you've got a new DPS now, but that was a long time coming.
How can we be confident now that if the occasion to request the CCTV that it's actually going to work and there's not another technical glitch?
It just yeah I'm not filled with confidence at the moment.
Sorry we can't have the new DPS present at the hearing today.
She has over 50 years experience in the business.
And as I say she's been on board.
There's a whole new CCTV system that's been put in place.
and she's more than familiar with licensing requirements and she will now be at the new
point of contact with Kent Police and the licensing authorities and she'll be able to
allay any concerns that either of the relevant authorities have.
I don't know if you want to address any questions directly to the new DPSC, you might be able
to get more information about her experience in the industry.
I bet she is here to answer any questions, madam.
Yes, very happy to hear.
For me?
I'm actually a Burgess article, my spoke. Can you hear me?
Hi, good afternoon. My name's Antoinette Burgess. I've been in the licensed trades since the
starting off in cloakroom, working my way up and eventually owning my own premises.
I was asked to be DPS in August of this year and since that time we have had new CCTB put
in. I regularly visit unannounced to the premises because obviously it's my licence and me who's
consequently could be in trouble.
Katie is learning very well and they know I'm very strict.
I'm very strict, I've sound a bit nervous, but I'm very strict.
And I've no problems in communicating with licensing police or anybody else
and if they've had any concerns, and I've had concerns,
and actually phoned them personally to find out, as he will confirm,
if I'm not sure, I phoned the licensing,
because obviously there's grey areas that I do visit three, four, five, six times a week
and it is always unannounced.
Councillor Meegan.
Thank you. Something quite interesting that the gentleman there brought up.
I'd just like to ask the police all the licensing.
Do you have the right under licensing law to request CCTV from a premises for any particular
toil whether an incident has been reported or not? I'd just like to know where that sits
within licensing. Is that possible?
Yeah, if we've got suspicion that there isn't some form of investigation such as
authorized sales of alcohol then yes that condition comes into effect.
We're going to take some time to discuss this and we'll be back with you shortly. Thank you.
I feel we should just wait until the license holder is back.
if there's anything more to add.
So if we can have a sum up from the position
as far as you see it, from where we are now,
PC Pringle, thank you.
No problem.
So Kent Police say that we must have full confidence
in license holders to promote every aspect
of the licensing objectives and act in an open,
transparent manner.
The standards they set will define the safety
within their premises.
Given the rural location of the Star Inn,
Kent Police believe this.
it's likely that what we've evidenced will only be the tip of the iceberg in terms of failures of this premises.
Given that such often such premises avoid significant scrutiny, action needs to be taken to ensure the prevention of crime disorder and public safety licensing objectives are promoted.
It's the view of Kent Police that if allowed to continue,
should more serious incidents take place,
then there will be a detriment to justice being seen
or carried out.
Potentially persons will be put at risk.
Ignorance or self -protection against the laws
that protect the public can never be an acceptable excuse.
That's our position, thank you.
Thank you.
There's one question from me.
Do you feel there are any conditions
that can be imposed in this situation?
No.
Does licensing have any more to add?
No, I just work with that at least and we work together on this thing.
Thank you, right, we're going to step out and have a...
Sorry, they're missing me.
Would the license holder have anything more to add at this stage?
Madam, nothing substantial to add other than what's already been said.
Only a lot of what is being said today is based mainly on speculation
rather than actual hard evidence to be put before us today.
Thank you.
Thank you. We'll take a moment. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you for your patience, everyone.
So, having considered the representations from licensing here from the police and on
behalf of the license holder, we have reached the decision and I am proposing that we revoke
the license.
Do I have a seconder?
I could second.
All those in favor?
Thank you, everybody.
Oh, yes.
The reasons for the decision will follow
within the next five working days.
Good morning. We will move to the first item on the agenda,
which is the election of chair. Can I have any nominations, please?
I propose, Councillor Blakemore.
I act to second.
Thank you. Councillor Blake Murray has been elected Chair. Please can you read the description
from the card?
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to the meeting of the Licensing Act Subcommittee.
This meeting will be webcast live to the internet. For those who do not wish to be recorded or
filmed you will need to leave the Chamber. For members, officers and others speaking
at the meeting it is important that the microphones are used so viewers on the webcast and others
in the room may hear you. Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent
mode as they can be distracting. I would like to remind members that although we all have
strong opinions on matters under consideration, it is important to treat members, officers
and public speakers with respect. So turning to today's agenda, do we have any declarations
of interest.
And declarations of lobbying, though there's a form in the pack to be completed and handed
in at the end.
So item number four, we are here for the application for review of a premises license in respect
of the Star Inn.
To consider the application under part three section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 made
by D .I. Wiles on behalf of Kent Police in respect to the star in St. Mary in the Marsh,
Romley Marsh, the licensing subcommittee must determine the outcome for the application.
So this is an adjournment from a couple of weeks ago.
And we will hear first of all from John Bickle, licensing officer, then from the police, and
then from the license holder.
and if any questions can be directed through me
after we've heard from all three.
Thank you.
Thank you, good morning everybody.
The committee is asked to consider the review application
for the premises license.
When considering the application,
the committee must ensure they fully promote
the licensing objectives.
The committee is obliged to have regard
to the revised national section 182 guidance
and the council's own licensing policy.
The Licensing Subcommittee is asked to note the contents of the report and determine the
application and the options for determining the application are set out in section 5.
The Licensing Act 2003 provides that the sale or supply of alcohol on and off the premises
and other licenceable activities must be authorised by a premises licence.
A premises licence holder must comply with the four licensing objectives.
the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety,
the prevention of public nuisance,
and the protection of children from harm.
The Star Inn has held a premises license for many years.
After being closed for a period of time,
it was sold in September 2023
and purchased by Miss Katie Duffy.
An incomplete application to transfer the premises license
was received on the 21st of November 2023,
with subsequent emails sent requesting
and additional missing paperwork.
Licensing officers were informed that the premises
was now occupied and that an incomplete application
had been received.
Ms. Duffy was informed on the first of the 12 -23
that until the necessary paperwork was completed,
licensable activities could not take place.
Licensing officers visited the premises in December 2023
due to no contact with Ms. Duffy
and found the premises open with unauthorized sales
of alcohol taking place.
A designated premises supervisor was sourced and paperwork completed during the visit.
Further visits were made to obtain the necessary paperwork from Ms Duffy to transfer the premises
licence.
Ms Duffy has advised that she will be applying for her personal licence and DPS.
We have recently cancelled her personal licence application due to missing paperwork and no
contact.
Since Ms Duffy has held the premises licence, two designated premises supervisors have removed
themselves with Antoinette Burgess being the current DPS and the current premises license
can be seen at Appendix 1.
Kent Police have submitted the request to review the premises license which can be seen
at Appendix 2.
The review request is in respect of the licensing objectives, the prevention of crime and disorder
and public safety.
The licensing authority must review the premises license where it is alleged in an application
for review by a responsible authority or an interested party that any of the licensing
objectives are being undermined. Relevant representations are those which are relevant
to one or more of the licensing objectives are made by a responsible authority or an
interested party within the prescribed period are made by the holder of the premises license
in response to an application for a review of the said premises have not been withdrawn
and, if made by an interested party, that they are not in the opinion of the relevant
licensing authority frivolous or vexatious.
It is recommended that the Licensing Committee determine the application for review and decide
what, if any, actions are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives
in relation to the Star Ring.
The Licensing Committee, in considering an application for review, must have regard to
The adopted Statement of Licence Policy, Section 182 guidance issued by the Secretary of State
and any relevant representations made by those directly affected and any other information
presented at the hearing.
This hearing has been required by the Licensing Act 2003 because a review application was
made by a responsible authority, Chem Police.
Representation has also been received from an interested party and this can be seen at
Appendix 3.
And the licensing subcommittee has the following options.
Take no action against the premises license, issue an informal warning letter, add conditions
to the license, exclude a licensable activity, remove the DPS, suspend the license for a
period of up to three months, or revoke the license.
And the committee is asked to note that it may not add conditions or revoke the license
because it considers it desirable to do so.
The committee must only consider evidence
that relates to the four licensing objectives.
Any conditions added must promote
the licensing objectives. Thank you.
Thank you if we could now hear
from PC Alistair Pringle.
Good morning Madam Chair and councillors.
Yeah, my name is Alistair Pringle.
I'm a police licensing officer with Kent
Police can please request a review.
the premises license at the Star Inn, having followed a staged approach to licensing enforcement,
Kent Police have the following concerns.
Breaches of conditions relating to the premises failing to supply CCTV on two separate occasions
which obstructed police investigations.
Poor management and timekeeping in respect of the licensed hours.
Allowing a drunk individual to remain on the premises.
Failing to support a police prosecution and evidenced unauthorised sales of alcohol.
All of these concerns will show that
the licensing objectives of prevention
of crime and disorder and public safety
have been significantly undermined,
and there is little faith that these
objectives will be sufficiently promoted.
In the future.
In February 2024,
folks in and High District Council
received information from two separate
complainants to suggest that the star
in had been opening into the early
hours and as late as five or 6 AM.
Kent police were concerned,
however it's not unusual to receive such
intelligence and not be able to validate it.
The subsequent events.
The evidence of sales beyond hours,
a drunk female being ejected from
the premises following an assault.
At nearly 3 AM provides significant
weight to that intelligence.
You will have read two statements by two
police officers that attended the star in.
and they are within your pack between pages 25 and 28.
They attended the Star Inn in the early hours of the 15th of June 2024.
Both officers made reference to a female and her levels of intoxication.
They located her in a drunken state causing a nuisance to a direct neighbour,
so drunk that she urinated herself and could not effectively communicate.
One of the officers completing one of the statements,
PC Janser, within his statement,
referred to his 19 years of experience within policing.
He stated that Katie Duffy, the license holder,
seemed hesitant with her account,
but when pressed, she said that she knew that female.
In his statement, he states that in his opinion,
the license holder was not telling the truth
about how that female was allowed to become so intoxicated,
that her responses were guarded and somewhat misleading.
It was clear that a disturbance had taken place inside the star inn
and it was likely that more than one person had been assaulted,
with the caller to Kent Police saying,
she's tried to attack everyone.
It's unlikely, in my opinion,
that that female stopped drinking alcohol at 22 .30
when alcohol sales ceased at that premises,
given how she presented in terms of her intoxication.
The police investigation was hindered firstly
because the license holder declined
to support that prosecution,
but secondly and more concerningly
because footage from the starring could not be obtained.
There was only one camera which activated on movement
in the same way a doorbell camera would,
covering more of the till area than any public area.
It's only held a couple of days worth of footage,
so no footage could be provided to cover that day in question.
These points were discovered during a follow -up meeting
at the premises on the 21st of June 2024
and involved the licence holder, bar manager,
police and council licensing officers.
At the same time at that meeting,
police requested to view till receipts.
And these were shown to evidence several
unauthorized sales of alcohol on various days.
The latest being at 2358 hours.
Within the pack on pages 29 through to 31,
you can see images of those till receipts
viewed and I'll draw your attention
to the lower half of page 31.
which shows a time check receipt.
To confirm the till was displaying the
correct time on that day of meeting.
In our view, that shows or supports.
That's more likely than not,
the other till timings were correct.
An unauthorized license for activity
is a serious offense which can attract
a severe penalty of a custodial period
of up to six months and or an unlimited fine.
This was fully explained and a
issued by Kent Police.
Whilst we understand that mistakes can be made.
We would expect premises to quickly learn from such mistakes
and show immediate improvements.
Kent Police were told that the drunk female
ejected on that night was in fact a customer
and that drunk individuals were allowed to remain
on the premises to sober up over concerns
that they might come to harm due to the rural location.
direction and guidance was provided to address this.
The Star Inn was told that there needed to be immediate tightening of controls that
events which could be described as potentially lock -ins were forbidden,
that allowing customers to remain at the premises after hours or allowing them to sober up must cease immediately.
The license holder and then. DPS is not the current DPS.
And replied to that warning and police were told that the DPS
was unaware of the CCTV condition on the license.
And the license holder reassured Ken police that there would be
no more breaches of licensing law.
On the 9th of August 2024, the premises were found to be open to the public at quarter past 11.
On that night, alcohol sales should have ceased at 22 .30 and it should have been closed to the public at 2300.
Many persons on that the time of that visit had glasses full of alcoholic drinks
and whilst Mr Bicknell was in attendance,
the last order's bell was heard ringing in the background.
Persons were encouraged to leave.
Kent Police remained concerned that on that night,
there was a blatant disregard to the authorizations
provided to the premises, and it appeared that
what can only be described as a haphazard approach
to the management with no valid explanation being offered.
A further investigation into unauthorized
licenseable activity at the premises was opened.
Kent Police again requested CCTV,
not only for that night but the next,
and each Friday and Saturday for the two weekends prior.
In order to prove or disprove the notion
that there was a continued and regular pattern
of the Star Inn opening beyond hours
and likely if open and operating,
continuing to commit the offence of
conducting alcohol sales other than
in accordance to an authorization.
Despite the set severity and the
previous previous reassurance is given,
the star in again failed to provide
that CCTV as requested.
Despite several requests and reminders,
even with the offer of assistance,
should there be an issue,
the request was ignored.
This obstructed the investigation.
The license holder raised that she
was going through a difficult
personal matter and requested a face
to face meeting which was agreed to.
This was held at the council offices
with police and council licensing
offices in attendance.
A summary which is police notes
in respect to that meeting
could be found on page 45.
Concerns were summarized at the
and again police asked what the state of play was with the premises providing the CCTV.
The response was that the licence holder believed that the footage had been recording,
the green light was flashing, but it was unrecoverable.
Police asked the licence holder when it was discovered that there was any issue with that hard drive
or that CCTV system and the licence holder said that she could not remember.
When asked again what happened on the 26th of June when the premises was found operating beyond its hours,
and why it appeared that so many customers had full drinks, the response was,
it was spontaneous, it was a good night, it won't happen again.
Kent Police are concerned that footage was not supplied to us due to fears of self -incrimination.
The guarded responses to the officers attending on the night of the 15th of June
The failing to provide CCTV to police on two occasions, despite being told by the license
holder that these matters were being taken seriously, that HAP has an approach to management,
the intelligence relating to late opening, all support the notion that adding conditions
to ensure the licensing objectives are promoted is not an option.
Kent Police asked the committee to consider how the objectives have been undermined, how
and how conditions attached to the premises license
have been breached when coming to your determination.
Unfortunately, in this case, we see no other avenue
than one of revocation.
This concludes the Kent Police representation.
Thank you.
Thank you, PC Pringle.
Could we now hear from the license holder, please?
Good morning.
Thank you. Before I address the points raised by relevant authority,
can I just say on behalf of Miss Duffy that she does appreciate that
there has been failings in the past and she's already taken a number of
steps in order to address the issues that have been raised by Kent
Police and also the Licensing Authority.
To address the specific concerns raised,
main incident being on the 15th of June
when the police received communication
that there was a drunk female at the premises.
To put that into a wider context, there is a resident above the starry who was in a relationship with this female.
She wasn't a customer at the pub. She was there to see the gentleman who resides above the premises.
she was drinking above the premises, she wasn't drinking in the starting itself
and therefore there were no sales to a person who appeared to be intoxicated
throughout that night and given the timing of the call that night, this wasn't a drunken
This is somebody that was lawfully within the premises with the permission of the resident
and the staff at the premises did all they could to secure her safety as has been referred
to.
They didn't want her wandering off at that time in the morning in the state that she
was and they were merely trying to assist the drunken female.
But at no time in relation to her did they breach their licensing conditions.
In relation to the allegations of assault by this intoxicated female.
that there were no official allegations made by any person
that they had been assaulted by this female
and the suggestion that Ms Duffy wasn't willing to support the prosecution
is just simply untrue.
There was no allegations made as such
When officers attended, they were taught of a female crime to attack everyone.
They made turns but no specific allegations were made.
Of course, we all know that the police have body -worn footage
and they don't need the support of anyone victim of a crime to pursue an allegation.
The case can be bought regardless of victim support, such as using the horrible footage
of any allegations made by any individual.
And it simply wasn't the case, lads.
The license holder was not assisting the police.
It was a matter outside of their license with a private individual and not a customer.
and as I say, the...
I don't know if my phone is affecting...
How is it?
Apologies.
I can't hear a fan.
Again, on the night of the 15th June, the CCTV was requested.
Now, as has already been alluded to, the CCTV on the 15th June wasn't sufficient.
that totally, exceptively covered the area behind the bar
rather than any area where any such behaviour by this drunk female would have been captured
and there was issues as well, technical issues with providing that CCTV
but what was available was a preventable evidence whatsoever to...
Yes, apologies.
So it wasn't a deliberate refusal to provide CCTV technical issues.
It didn't cover the area in question.
It certainly didn't have any relevant footage of the incident that the police required.
There was receipts provided by Mr Duffy when requested
because of the suspicion of after sales.
Again, as confirmed, the latest being at 23 58.
At that time, the premises was under the supervision
of a different DPS than the one that is currently managing the premises at the moment.
And these receipts were provided voluntarily by the stuff issues, we were trying to hide
the fact that there was after our sales, not until the early hours of the morning, the
these issues have been addressed. These go back to June and the new DPS took a
position in September and since that time with the new DPS there has been a
new CCTV system installed that covers all of the public areas that need to be
viewed by CCTV cameras where any member of the public can be seen.
So again mistakes have been made in the past they have been addressed and when CCTV has
being requested of nights other than the 15th of June that the same issues
regarding the technical issues as previously described was still causing
difficulties again it wasn't a deliberate refusal to provide the CCTV
which is why the new CCTV system has now been put in place. I would make the
I know this isn't the vast one, Miss Duffy herself,
but it seems like the subsequent requests for CCTV
and even the CCTV requested in relation to the incident
on the 15th of June, I would suggest,
were outside of the licensing conditions
that the police have requested CCTV
in order to establish self -incrimination against Ms Duffy, as the police have already alluded
to today's hearing, and that is not the purpose for why CCTV is a mandatory licensing requirement.
It's not there for people to self -incriminate who have a right not to do so.
and again this isn't something that Ms Duffy suggests took place it is merely a submission made on her behalf
that should not be taken against her these licensing conditions that require CCTB as well as the protection of the public
not to self incriminate as to whether they are out of our cells
So I would suggest there has only been one legitimate request for CCTV of the night before
June when the police did have reasonable suspicion to suspect that events involving the licence
had taken place but of course the stuffy states that that was not the case.
This was a private individual from the flat above.
Moving on to when officers attended on the 9th August, they attended at quarter past
eleven in the evening.
The premises still had a right to be open at that time with customers finishing their
drinks.
There is evidence from the officer that there were glasses full which would give an influence
at best that they were purchased after hours.
However, this is only an inculant here.
There's no actual direct evidence of after sales
being made on the 9th of August.
Officers could have attended,
test purchases could be made to conclusively establish
whether after hours sales had taken place,
this did not occur and the 10th Police,
I'm merely asking for,
It is here to conclude that after ourselves did occur on that sentence alone and I suggest
that that is not sufficient in this case.
The officer did witness the bell being rang to suggest last orders.
That member of staff, he wasn't a DPS holder, the member of staff no longer works at that
establishment and Miss Duffy says that there was no confirmation at all by any member of
staff that last orders were ran after quarter past eleven at night.
So she's not able to provide any further helpful information in relation to that and that member
of staff no longer works at premises in any event and Miss Duffy does not know why if
that bell was rang, why that was.
In relation to the concerns raised by the licensing authority,
which refers back to December time,
there were issues with regards to the application,
but that was subsequently granted and the premises was provided with a license.
I suggest that that can't possibly be held against this stuffy
when considering the range of options available today
in relation to this particular review.
Going to the options available
against the information that this hearing company has about the improvements
and that have been made to Starvin with a new DPS now in a full -time permanent position
who has lots of experience working in this industry.
UCCTB installed which does cover all of the areas where the public can remain and Ms Duffy's
commitment to working fully cooperatively with the police and the licensing authority
so that there are no further concerns raised in the future.
There as I say are a number of different options to allow Ms Duffy to prove what she is saying
in the hearing today.
It's not suggested at all that no action be taken,
although we suggest no proof has been put forward
of any breaches of the license.
This stuff it does certainly take on board
that previous incidents have legitimately given rise
concerns by the Kent police and therefore we would suggest that an
informal warning letter be issued to Ms Duffy setting out fully the concerns of
the police and the licensing authority so that if there are any further
incidences then this of course will be held against Ms Duffy. There don't appear
to be any additional conditions that could be reasonably added to her current license
to address the concerns raised today.
And the current DPS took her position after these incidences occurred so there should
no requirement to remove the current DPS who has been in charge of implementing
the corrections that were needed to the star rip. Suspending the license would
not allow Ms Duffy to demonstrate to the police and the licensing authority that
she is of course taking all of these matters seriously and doing all she can to
address these concerns and to revoke the license would be the absolute last resort and the
most extreme of measures when even if these allegations weren't proven it is suggested
that that would be too much of an extreme measure to take given the allegations that
have been made before the hearing today.
So my recommendation and suggestion to the committee today
is to issue an informal warning letter
recognizing that these concerns are still real and active,
it's particularly in relation to the police,
and to give Ms Duffy the opportunity to prove
that she is a responsible license holder.
Don't know if I could be of any further assistance at all.
Thank you, sir.
Do either of my fellow councillors have any questions?
Just one if I may, because I don't know the layout of the pub.
So we have a chap, I'm guessing, living upstairs,
and you're saying that I guess his girlfriend possibly was upstairs drinking.
Do they have direct access to the bar then, or do they have a separate entrance?
except for entrance.
So she would have come down and been allowed
to go into the main area, is that correct?
We ejected her, took her through the bar
and through the front door, but there's a normal back passage,
back door, then you go around to the front,
which is what is generally used by my residents.
Instead of going through the bar that go round the back.
Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
So you're saying she was upstairs drinking with her boyfriend.
How did she gain access to the downstairs?
She only gained access when we took her out.
We rejected her from the building.
Was she in the main bar area?
No.
She was upstairs.
She was screaming upstairs.
That's why I went up to eject her from the building.
So you went upstairs and ejected her from the building?
Yes, my son, yes.
Thank you.
Councillor Shue.
Thank you.
I'm just trying to clarify, was this version explained to the police at the time?
Slightly unclear.
Apologies, was that directed at myself?
Well to either, I'm not clear from the report that this was explained at the time, that
this person was visiting upstairs.
Yes. So on attendance at the Star Inn, we were told that that female was a customer
by Katie Duffy and there was a suggestion that rather than intoxication that it was
a medical issue in terms of some medication that that female was taking but quite clearly
with the attending officers when they're suspected of their encounter with Miss Duffy, we weren't
being told what we believe to be the truth in respect of that link between the two policies.
I just have a couple of questions.
There's reference in the pack about the music license conditions also being breached.
Do we have any more detail on that?
Sorry.
Yes, music was playing as well at the time when I visited a course past 11, there was music playing as well as alcohol.
I didn't see any sales but there was certainly lots of alcohol around, people having a good time in there.
The other question, I just want to check with my fellow cancers, I think there is some body cam footage of your visit on the 9th, do we want to see that?
I think we need to exclude the public though for it.
So can we have a proposer to exclude the public?
I just wanted to ask you how can we be confident there's been such a long ongoing
a series of incidents, shall we say.
How can we be confident?
I know you say you've got a new DPS now.
But that was a long time coming.
How can we be confident now that if the occasion
to request the CCTV, that it's actually going to work
and there's not another technical glitch?
It just, yeah, I'm not filled with confidence at the moment.
We currently have the new DPS present at the hearing today.
She has over 50 years experience in the business and as I say she's been on board.
There's a whole new CCTV system that's been put in place and she's more than familiar
with licensing requirements and she will now be looking at the new point of contact with
and the licensing authorities and she'll be able to.
And they any concerns that either
of the relevant authorities have.
I don't know if you want to address
any questions directly to the new
DPS who might be able to get more
information about her experience
in the industry.
Which issue is here to
answer any questions matter.
Yeah, very happy to hear from me.
I'm actuallyurgy, particular mode.
To theping
Hi, good afternoon. My name is Antoinette Burgess. I've been in the licensed trades
since the age of 17, starting off in Clover and working my way up and eventually owning
my own premises. I was asked to be DPS in August of this year and since that time we
We have had new CCTV put in.
I regularly visit unannounced to the premises
because obviously it's my licence and me,
who consequently could be in trouble.
Katie is learning very well and they know I'm very strict.
I'm very strict, I've sound a bit nervous, but I'm very strict.
And I have no problems in communicating with licensing police or anybody else.
and if they've had any concerns, and I've had concerns,
and actually phoned them personally to find out,
as he will confirm, if I'm not sure,
I phoned the licensing, because obviously
there's grey areas that I do visit
three, four, five, six times a week,
and it is always unannounced.
Thank you.
Something quite interesting that the gentleman there brought up.
I'd just like to ask the police all the licensing.
Do you have the right under licensing law to request CCTV from a premises for any particular
whether an incident has been reported or not.
I'd just like to know where that sits within the licensing.
Is that possible?
Yeah, if we've got suspicion that there isn't some form of investigation
such as unauthorized potential or suspicion of unauthorized sales of alcohol,
then yes, that condition comes into effect.
Okay, we're going to take some time to discuss this and we'll be back with you shortly.
Thank you.
All right, we'll take some time.
I feel we should just wait until the license holder is back.
licensing if there's anything more to add.
So if we can have a sum up from the position as far as you see it,
from where we are now, PC Pringle, thank you.
No problem.
So Kent Police say that we must have full confidence in license holders
to promote every aspect of the licensing objectives
and act in an open and transparent manner.
The standards they set will define the safety within their premises.
Given the rural location of the Star Inn,
Kent police believe this, it's likely.
What we've evidence will only be
the tip of the iceberg in terms
of failures at this premises.
Given that such often such premises
avoid significant scrutiny.
Action needs to be taken to ensure
the prevention of crime disorder
and public safety licensing
objectives are promoted.
It's the view of Kent police that
if allowed to continue should more
serious incidents take place.
then there will be a detriment to justice being seen or carried out.
Potentially persons will be put at risk.
Ignorance or self -protection against the laws that protect the public
can never be an acceptable excuse.
That's our position. Thank you.
Thank you.
There's one question from me.
Do you feel there are any conditions that can be imposed in this situation?
No.
Does licensing have any more to add? No, I just work with values and we work together on this thing.
Thank you. Right, we're going to step out and have a...
Sorry, you're missing me. Would the license holder have anything more to add at this stage?
Madam, nothing substantial to add other than what's already been said.
Only a lot of what is being said today is based mainly on speculation rather than actual hard evidence to be put before seeing it today.
Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, we'll take a moment. Thank you everyone.
Thank you for your patience everyone.
So having considered the representations from licensing here from the police and on behalf
of the license holder, we have reached the decision and I am proposing that we revoke
the license.
Do I have a seconder?
I could second.
All those in favor?
Thank you everybody.
Oh yes, the reasons for the decision will follow within the next five working days.