Agenda item

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.6

(“ The Committee”)

Thursday 24^th March 2022

Membership:           Councillor Tim Mitchell (Chair) Councillor Heather Acton and Councillor Rita Begum

Officer Support        Legal Adviser:         Horatio Chance

                                Policy Officer:          Aaron Harding

                                Committee Officer: Kisi Smith-Charlemagne & Jack Robinson-                             Young

                                 Presenting Officer: Roxsana Haq

Revocation of a Personal Licence (21/00418/LIPERS)

Other Parties Present: Metropolitan Police (PC Reaz Guerra)

                                                     Full Decision

Premises

None

Applicant

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Summary of Application

The Sub-Committee has determined the Revocation of a Personal Licence in the name of Mr Paul Rajasegram under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). The request has been made by the MPS due to several convictions pursuant to paragraph 18A, Schedule 4 of the Act (Personal Licence relevant offences).

Representations received

Metropolitan Police Service (PC Reaz Guerra).

Summary of issues raised by Metropolitan Police

The MPS had brought this matter before the Sub-Committee following the Personal Licence holder being convicted of sexual offences under paragraph 18A, schedule 4 of the Act. The MPS had provided evidence which included a witness statement on 9 March 2022 detailing all relevant offences and reaffirmed the need for revocation of the Personal Licence.

SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS

The Presenting Officer Ms Roxsana Haq summarised the application for the Sub-Committee. She advised that a request had been made by the Metropolitan Police to consider the Revocation of a Personal Licence in the name of Paul Rajasegaram due to convictions pursuant to paragraph 18A, Schedule 4 of the Act (Personal License relevant offences).

The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee had previously given advice to the Sub-Committee which included whether the name of the Personal Licence Holder should be made public and if the hearing should proceed in his absence.

The Legal Advisor stated that due to information already out in the public domain relating to Mr Rajasegaram’s history and background regarding the relevant offences committed there was no real justification for details of his name to be withheld during the hearing on the grounds that he would not be prejudiced or disadvantaged as a result. It was deemed to be in the public interest for this information to be disclosed.

On the question whether the matter should proceed in the absence of Mr Rajasegaram the Sub-Committee was advised by the Licensing Authority that Mr Rajasegaram had been written to with full details of the matter and about the hearing. The Sub-Committee noted that Mr Rajasegaram was unable to attend the hearing but had the opportunity to send legal representation in his absence and had received no request for the matter to be adjourned.

The Sub-Committee decided that the hearing should not be delayed and it was in the public interest for the matter to be heard in Mr Rajasegaram’s absence.

PC Reaz Guerra appearing on behalf of the MPS addressed the Sub-Committee. PC Guerra confirmed that the MPS had brought this matter before the Sub-Committee following the Licence holder being convicted of sexual offences under paragraph 18A, schedule 4 of the Licensing Act 2003. The MPS had provided evidence which included a witness statement on 9March 2022 detailing all relevant offences and reaffirmed the need for revocation of the Personal Licence.

PC Guerra confirmed the charges were valid as stated by the Licensing Authority and had no further comments to make.

Conclusion

The Sub-Committee realises that it has duty to consider each application on its individual merits and did so when determining this application.

The Sub-Committee noted from the MPS evidence that on 3 June 2021 the Licensing Authority were notified that the Personal Licence Holder had been convicted of offences involving counts of making indecent images of children and the distribution of images of children and was given a custodial sentence as a result.

The Sub-Committee duly considered the evidence presented by the MPS and were satisfied that these were relevant offences of which the personal licence holder had indeed been convicted.

The Sub-Committee based on the evidence it had before it and the promotion of the licensing objectives particularly the Prevention and Crime and Disorder licensing objective and the Protection of Children from Harm licensing objective concluded that the Personal Licence Holder was not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. The Sub-Committee decided that the two licensing objectives would seriously be undermined if it failed to take the necessary prompt action as a responsible and competent decision maker given the severity of the matter and the associated risk to the public.

Accordingly, in all the circumstances of the case the Sub-Committee decided that it was appropriate and proportionate to Revoke the Personal Licence.

In its determination of the matter the Sub-Committee had regard to the Revised Home Office Guidance issued under s.182 of the Act namely Paragraphs 4.19-4.25 on Pages 24 and 25 of the Guidance. It also had regard to the relevant provisions contained within the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy when considering the promotion of both the Crime and Disorder and Protection of Children from Harm licensing objectives when the sale of alcohol and other licensable activities are taking place in licensed premises because of the impact on the wider community and on crime.

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes

effect Forthwith.

The Licensing Sub-Committee

24 March 2022