Agenda item

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.2 (“The Committee”)

 

Thursday 15 December 2022

 

Membership: Councillor Maggie Carman (Chair), Councillor Concia Albert and Councillor Caroline Sargent

                            

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) have applied for an expedited review hearing of Vanity Bar And Nightclub, 4 Carlisle Street, London W1D 3BJ - 22/11860/LIREVX

 

The Premises:

 

Vanity Bar And Nightclub,

4 Carlisle Street,

London

W1D 3BJ

 

Officers Present:

 

The Legal Adviser –          Steve Burnett;

The Committee Officer –   Georgina Wills;

 

The Presenting Officer –   Jessica Donovan

 

Applicant: Metropolitan Police Services - MPS

Gerald Gouriet – Counsel for the Applicant

Steve Muldoon -  MPS

Reaz Guerra –     MPS

Premises Licence Holder: Vanity License Ltd - PLH

Gary Grant – Counsel for the PLH

Luke Elford - Solicitor

Manpal Singh Clair – Director of Vanity License Ltd 

Lorraine Forman – DPS

Shane Mountier – Assistant Manager

 

 

Preliminary Matter:

1.          The Chair introduced the Members of the Committee and outlined the procedure to the Parties in attendance. The Members and officers confirmed that they had no declarations of interest to make.

2.          The Chair noted that the Committee agenda consisted of the application for summary review, the existing Premises Licence, Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence (SEV), licence history, crime report summary, the supporting statements from the MPS, and a short video footage, emails between MPS and the PLH’s solicitor which had been served and circulated to all Parties prior to the application for interim steps.  

 

3.          The video footage showed a card transaction between an identifiable customer and a member of staff at the premises. Also present was an identifiable dancer partially clothed.

 

4.          The PLH made submissions under The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 para 14 that the video footage should be viewed in private.

 

5.          There were no objections from the Applicant.

 

Preliminary Submissions decision.

 

The Committee has considered the submissions from both parties and have determined that the viewing of video footage to be used as evidence at the hearing, will be done in private.

 

It is in the Public Interest to exclude the public under Reg 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearing) Regulations 2005 from this part of the hearing. The Committee confirmed that they had viewed the footage in private.

 

The remainder of the hearing will be a public hearing.

 

Submissions

The MPS consider the Premises are associated with serious crime and serious disorder and are seeking the revocation of the licence at the full review, which will take place within 28 days of the Application for the summary Review being received by the Licensing Authority.

 

Options for the Committee

The Committee may take such interim steps as it considers necessary and proportionate for the promotion of the licensing objectives, namely: -

(a) modification of the conditions of the premises licence (modify, delete or add conditions);

(b) to exclude the sale by retail of alcohol from the scope of the licence;

(c) to remove the designated premises supervisor;

(d) to suspend the licence;
(e) to take no action

 

The Committee was informed by Mr Gouriet that the trigger incident for the application for an Expedited Review was an allegation of robbery from a customer who had attended the Premises on the 26th of November 2022. Investigations relating to that matter are ongoing.

 

In summary, Mr Gouriet stated that the victim attended the Premises and had a drink at 1:20 AM but thereafter, he remembers nothing. The victim was able to track his movements using Google Maps which showed he left the Premises and spent some 2 ½ hours at a car wash. The victim subsequently regained consciousness near to his home. The Committee advised that the victim checked his bank accounts and found that £3K was taken by Vanity in four separate transactions, £4200 taken by a café, £500 in three transactions by Vanity and £14K by an unknown business during his unconsciousness.

 

The victim’s loss of memory, which he says was as a result of being ‘spiked’ was assisted by an account given by his friend. That friend stated that both of them attended the Premises and were subsequently separated with one going to the first floor and the other to the basement for private dances. The friend paid for one dance but refused to pay for a second. He asked to see his friend (the victim) but was told that he would have to pay a further £280. He refused and after waiting some time, he then left without his friend.

 

There have been 11 similar incidents detailed on the Crime Report summary and linked to the Premises. The MPS attended the Premises but when they requested to view CCTV, they allege that although allowed to view snapshots of footage, they were obstructed by the assistant manager and DPS. There was further correspondence between MPS and the solicitors for the PLH but to date, the MPS have not had access to CCTV footage.

 

Mr Gouriet informed the Committee that whilst viewing a snapshot of the CCTV, they saw a dancer grinding her buttocks only lap of a customer which is in breach of a condition on the Sexual Entertainment Venue licence.

 

Mr Gouriet submitted that there was a significant risk to crime prevention and a credible threat to public safety and therefore the MPS requests suspension of the Premises Licence.

 

The Committee was told that the customer seen in the video footage was not the victim and the MPS did not have the times of the credit card transactions.

 

On behalf of the PLH, Mr Grant submitted that the Applicant is asking the Committee to assume the allegations are true in the absence of evidence.

 

Mr Grant advised the Committee that the Premises has traded since 2014 without enforcement or review and the SEV has been renewed annually. The Committee noted that Mr Singh Clair had operated London venues for 22 years and is a man of good character, the DPS had been in the industry for 40 years and the assistant manager had been a civil enforcement officer.

 

Mr Grant explained that suspension of the Premises Licence would have a serious impact on the business at this crucial time and could destroy the business. He advised that the Committee must be satisfied that the MPS use of the Summary Review procedures is appropriate and proportionate, the MPS case is strong and that there are no lesser measures which could be imposed. Mr Grants view was that the MPS had failed on all three.

 

The Committee was referred to paragraphs 9.12, 12.2 and 12.7 of Revised Guidance issued under sec 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and he questioned whether a standard review would be more appropriate given the delay between serving the Review Papers and the trigger incident. The Committee heard from Mr Grant, supported by their expert witness, Mr Bamber, that when some customers attend a SEV premises and later realise how much they had spent, they will report it as a crime to make a claim for compensation from their bank. Furthermore, when customers have too much to drink, they will claim that their drink had been spiked.

 

The MPS have no medical evidence or witness statements to confirm spiking had taken place at the Premises.

 

The Committee were advised that in the absence of key information from the MPS, the CCTV footage viewed by the Committee attempts to identify the victim in the trigger incident and shows that when payment is taken, a receipt given which are not the actions of a Premises involved in credit card fraud.

 

The Committee noted the cost of dances at the Premises and heard that sometimes, customers on leaving the Premises attend brothels where they are subsequently defrauded.

 

Mr Grant complained about the MPS lack of disclosure, the inappropriate use of their powers, lack of transparency and evidential inconsistency. The MPS also failed to inform the PLH of the other 11 incidents detailed on the Crime Report which dates back to Sept 2021.

 

Mr Grant advised the Committee of inconsistencies in the offences on the Crime Report and advised that fraud had not taken place at the Premises.

 

The PLH denied being obstructive when the MPS requested video footage. The request for footage from all cameras, (including cameras covering offices and changing rooms), over 4 days amounting to 540 hours was not seen to be proportionate by the PLH or his legal adviser.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, it was noted that the dancers were regular and self-employed and the assistant manager and DPS had been working at the Premises for 5 years. The dancers do not take payment and that there is a limit on card payments which normally requires the holder to provide authorisation direct to the bank. Interaction with customers when they are making payment will identify whether a customer is fit enough to remain on the Premises or authorise payment. The DPS confirmed to the Committee that if there was a complaint, then this would be recorded in an incident book. The PLH stated that it was not unusual to spend £3500 and over during an evening at the Premises. Some customers had complained about fraud and reported the matter to their banks. The banks had contacted the Premises and when shown CCTV footage, the banks concluded their enquires with the Premises without blame.

 

The DPS confirmed that whilst a private dance is taking place, if the customer required a drink, then only the DPS or the assistant manager would collect and deliver the drink to the customer.

 

Mr Grant on behalf of the PLH requested that the Committee instructed the MPS to serve statements, details of relevant transactions, description of the victim and date and times of the victims’ attendance at the Premises withing 5 working days.

 

The Committee’s legal adviser, Mr Burnett informed the Committee that there were no powers under the Licensing Act 2003 which gives the Committee authority to compel a party to disclose evidence withing a certain period.

 

 

INTERIM STEPS DECISION

 

The Committee concluded that the incident on the 26^th November 2022, which has been reported to the MPS, has raised concerns about the Licensing Objectives, in particular protection of the public and the prevention of crime.

 

The Committee noted that there are a number of similar incidents linked to the Premises to be investigated, which causes extreme concern.

 

It is the PLH’s duty to promote the licensing objectives and to be aware of what is taking place at his/her Premises. The DPS authorises the sale of alcohol and has day to day control of the Premises. The Committee is satisfied that customers’ safety is at risk and that serious criminal activities have taken place against customers who have attended the Premises.

 

The Committee considered that the condition proposed by Mr Grant would not be sufficient to protect customers. Namely that “All credit card transactions shall take place in full view of CCTV cameras.”

 

The Licensing Objectives of public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder are not being promoted and the Committee has not been convinced that the Premises is taking sufficient measures to promote the Licensing Objectives.

Having carefully considered the application for an expedited review and the evidence presented by the MPS and the Premises Licence Holder, both verbally and in writing, the Committee has concluded that the Premises is associated with serious crime and serious disorder and it is necessary and proportionate to take the following step, namely to suspend the premises licence.

 

In view of the seriousness of this case, it is necessary and proportionate for the Interim Step and for this Interim Decision to take immediate effect.

 

If the Premises Licence Holder is unhappy with the decision, he is entitled to submit a representation against the interim step taken by the Committee.  If a representation is received the Licensing Authority will convene a further interim hearing within 48 hours of receipt of the representation.  

 

The Premises licence holder and chief officer of MPS will receive advance notice of this hearing.

 

The full review hearing will take place within 28 days of receipt of the MPS application to review the licence. Details of this hearing will be provided in due course by the Licensing Authority.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

15 December 2022