Agenda item

Louche, 4 Greek Street, London, W1D 4DB

 

Ward
CIA*
SCZ
**

Site Name & Address

Application
Type

Licensing Reference No.

West End

 

* West  End

 

**

Louche

4 Greek Street

London

W1D 4DB

 

Shadow Licence

22/06957/LIREVX

*Cumulative Impact Area
** Special Consideration Zone

 

Minutes:

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. (4)

 

INTERIM STEPS DECISION

 

Friday 17 May 2024

 

Membership:           Councillor Angela Piddock (Chair) Councillor Iman Less and Councillor Caroline Sargent

 

Expedited Review of a Shadow Premises Licence in respect of Louche 4 Greek Street London W1D 4DB 24/03041/LIREVX (“The Premises”)


The Metropolitan Police Service (“Police”) submitted an application for a Summary Review of the above Premises pursuant to Section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”) on 15 May 2024 as the Police considered the Premises were associated with serious crime. The Premises Licence Holder (“PLH”) for the Main Licence is Samocca Assets Limited (British Virgin Islands Company) and the registered Designated Premises Supervisor is Mr Elliott Dennis Rogers. The PLH for the Shadow Licence is Samocca Assets Limited but with a UK company registered address.


The Full Review of the Premises will take place within 28 days of the date the application was made, being 15 May 2024. However, the purpose of today’s hearing is for the Sub-Committee to determine whether it is necessary to take any interim steps in respect of both licences pending the determination of the full review.

Premises Licence Holder (Shadow Licence)

Samocca Assets Limited

 

Persons attending the hearing

For the Police:

 

Mr Armin Solimani (Counsel) Francis Taylor Building Chambers

PC Steve Muldoon

PC Adam Deweltz

For the Premises Licence Holder

 

Mr Elliott Dennis Rogers

Mr Dennis Rogers

Officers present:

Presenting Officer - Kevin Jackaman
Legal Adviser - Horatio Chance;
Committee Officer - Jessica Barnett

 

 

Activities and Hours

The Premises operates as a Bar and is permitted to allow the sale by retail of alcohol for the following hours: -


Performance of Dance

 

Monday to Sunday: 09:00 to 02:00 (Ground & First Floors)

 

Performance of Live Music

 

Monday to Sunday: 09:00 to 02:00 (Ground & First Floors)

 

Playing of Recorded Music

 

Monday to Sunday: 00:00 to 00:00 (Ground & First Floors)

Anything of a similar description to Live Music, Recorded Music or Performance of Dance

 

Monday to Sunday: 09:00 to 02:00 (Ground & First Floors)

 

Late Night Refreshment

 

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 02:30 (Ground & First Floors)

Sunday: 23:00 to 02:00 (Ground & First Floors)

Sundays before Bank Holidays: 23:00 to 02:30 (Ground & First Floors)

 

Private Entertainment consisting of dancing, music or other entertainment of a like kind for consideration and with a view to profit

 

Monday to Sunday: 00:00 to 00:00 (Ground & First Floors)

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol

 

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 02:00 (Ground & First Floors)

Sunday: 12:00 to 00:30 (Ground & First Floors)

Sundays before Bank Holidays: 12:00 to 02:00 (Ground & First Floors)

 

The Opening Hours of the Premises:

 

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 02:30

Sunday: 09:00 to 02:00

Sundays before Bank Holidays: 09:00 to 02:30

Where the licence authorises supplies of alcohol, whether these are on and/or off supplies:

 

Alcohol is supplied for consumption on the Premises.


Preliminary Matters:

1.          The Chair introduced the Members of the Sub-Committee and outlined the procedure to the Parties in attendance. The Chair confirmed that there were two applications for consideration relating to the Summary Review of the Premises namely the Main Premises Licence (licence reference number 23/04544/LIPDPS) and the Shadow Licence (licence reference number 23/004566/LIPSL) referred to as the (“Licences”).

 

2.          It was considerate appropriate that both applications would be heard in the round but two separate Decisions would be issued by the Licensing Authority. The parties did not raise objection to proceeding in this manner when considering the powers of the Sub-Committee regarding the interim steps to be taken for the Licences.

 

3.          The Sub-Committee Members confirmed that they had no declarations of interest to make.

4.          The Chair noted that the Sub-Committee agenda consisted of the application for summary review, the existing Licences of the Premises and the supporting statements of the Police which had been served and circulated previously to all Parties which included Mr Elliott Dennis Rogers as DPS along with his Father Mr Dennis Rogers attended the hearing, along with Mr Niall McCann representing the Landlord so each party was able to defend the application for interim steps.  

 

5.     The Presenting Officer, Kevin Jackaman, outlined the application explaining a review of the licences had been brought by the Metropolitan Police on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder.

 

6.     The Police were represented by Armin Solimani Counsel, PC Steve Muldoon and PC Adam Deweltz were in attendance to assist the Sub-Committee. It was noted that the PLH for the Main Licence was not legally represented but Elliot Rogers, Dennis Rogers, Andy Banon and Ruben Santos were all in attendance from the Premises.

 

7.     In respect of the shadow licence, the PLH was represented by Niall McCann of Keystone Law and Chaim Aziz, Managing Director of Estate Office. The Premises is located in the West End ward and falls within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.

 

8.     In determining this hearing, the Sub-Committee may take such interim steps as it considered were necessary to address the immediate problems with the Premises and the likelihood of serious crime and serious disorder occurring pending the full review, namely: -

 

(a) modify the conditions of the premises licence;

(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.

 

Submissions by the Police

 

9.        Mr Armin Solimani Counsel representing the Police, explained that they were seeking a suspension of the Licences, as an interim step before the full hearing that would take place on 6 June 2024. Mr Solimani stated that it was the firm view of the Police that suspension was the minimum necessary to promote the licensing objectives to prevent crime and disorder and serious crimes occurring at the Premises.

 

10.      Mr Solimani went on to explain the three reasons for this; firstly, the crimes that took place were extremely serious and occurred in a short period of time. Secondly, on each occasion the response from staff was shockingly inadequate and caused and risked serious harm. Thirdly, the management had shown an unwillingness to cooperate with the Police despite their attempts to engage.

 

11.      Mr Solimani gave a brief outline of the crimes that had occurred at the Premises including what was seen via CCTV and reported by the victim and the subsequent response by staff at the Premises. Mr Solimani noted that the response of security staff and management showed a clear inadequacy of training which resulted in the suspect being led outside the venue with the victim and failing to be detained.

 

12.      Mr Solimani explained that the suspect had been arrested days later following investigations by the Police who used private CCTV to follow him around the area and were able to identify him after he scanned his ID when entering another venue. In the interim days before he was arrested, he committed another sexual assault and also assaulted a doorman at another venue.

 

13.      Mr Solimani stated that both of the subsequent assaults would have been prevented had the suspect been detained at the venue.

 

14.      Mr Solimani explained that there had also been issues with crime scene preservation when the victim had been given bottled water by the assistant manager further hindering the Police investigation. They had also failed to fill out a report in their incident logbook which was a breach of a condition of their licence and had not notified the Police of the incident.

 

15.      Mr Solimani referred to a previous ABH incident which had taken place at the Premises on the 28 April 2024 and had not been handled correctly. Staff failed to detain the suspect and did not phone the Police despite the victim asking them to do so.

 

16.      Mr Solimani explained that incident reports sent to the PLH by the Police, were in their opinion not filled out appropriately and showed a lack of seriousness of the offences that had taken place.

 

17.      In conclusion, Mr Solimani stated that running a nightclub was an enormous responsibility, noting that nightclubs generate risk of the most serious crimes and the licensing regime depends on trust and on operators self-regulating and doing all they can to protect their customers to uphold the promotion of the licensing objectives. He said that the Police do not have faith that the operator can run a safe establishment and therefore requested that the main licence be suspended pending a full review. Mr Solimani said that they were not seeking to suspend the shadow licence.

 

18.      The Sub-Committee asked Mr Solimani if he could give an example of the steps the Police would expect to be taken in the situation that occurred. PC Steven Muldoon stated that they would expect the security to safeguard the victim immediately by radioing the manager and other security staff and detaining the suspect in an office. PC Steve Muldoon noted there had been every opportunity to do this.

 

19.      The Sub-Committee asked whether the Police felt that the existing conditions on the licence would have been sufficient had they been followed. PC Steve Muldoon stated that he did not believe they were sufficient and had this been a new licensing application they would be asking for conditions such as a welfare officer after a certain time of day and ID scans upon entry of the Premises.

 

20.      The Sub-Committee noted that in the Police’s report they had mentioned that other conditions had not been complied with including condition 13 on the premises licence which reads as follows:-

 

On any evening where the premises or part of the premises are open for the purpose of music and dance, alcohol shall not be sold or supplied to persons entering that part of the premises except to:

(a) Persons who have paid a minimum admission fee of at least £5.00 Monday to Thursday and £7.00 Friday and Saturday for music, dancing and

entertainment, such charges not to be credited against consumables; or

(b) Persons who have paid a minimum annual admission fee of at least £150

payable in advance for music, dancing and entertainment (not to be credited

against consumables). A list of all persons who have paid an annual

admission fee will be held at reception for inspection by the relevant

authority; or

(c) Persons attending a private function/event booked at least 24 hours in

advance, where the functions organiser's name and address is to be kept at

reception for inspection by Police;

(d) Artistes or persons employed on the premises;

(e) Bona fide guests of the management not to exceed 10% of capacity, a list of whom shall be kept at reception for inspection by relevant authorities; or

(f) Persons taking full table meals a list of whom are held at reception for

inspection by the relevant authorities.

 

21.      PC Steve Muldoon confirmed that when asked, the general manager stated they were unaware of this condition and said they do not charge an entrance fee during the week and at the weekend they only charge an entrance fee when it is busy. PC Steve Muldoon stated that a section 19 notice had been issued as a result of this.

 

22.      The Sub-Committee asked whether the Police had seen the premises’ incident logbook. PC Steve Muldoon explained that the assistant manager had admitted that they had not filled out a report in the incident logbook and that the police had therefore not had sight of the incident logbook.

 

23.      The Sub-Committee asked for a brief overview of what staff were on the premises on the night of the incident and what the capacity of the venue was. PC Steve Muldoon explained that it was the Polices’ understanding that a bar manager, security staff and day-to-day bar staff were on duty. The general manager was not on duty but had been phoned after the incident had occurred. The venue capacity was 260 persons.

 

Submissions by the PLH (Main Licence)

 

24.      Mr Dennis Rogers introduced himself and his son Elliott Rogers, explaining that they own the business along with another private members club in Soho. They have run the Premises for one year. Mr Dennis Rogers acknowledged that the incident that occurred was terrible and did not wish to excuse the handling of the incident by staff. He stated that apart from the two incidents mentioned, there had been no other incidents in the year they have been open.

 

25.      Mr Dennis Rogers explained that they had appointed a new General Manager, Ruben Santos and had also appointed a new security company. He explained that the assistant manager on duty had not recorded the incident in the incident logbook on the day due to being traumatised by the incident and had subsequently been absent from work the following 24 hours. He confirmed that it had now been entered in the incident logbook.

 

26.      Mr Elliott Rogers interjected to say that the Police Welfare Officer had told the assistant manager not to enter it that night due to her being traumatised. Mr Dennis Rogers stated his surprise at the lack of crime scene preservation by the assistant manager, stating she had many years’ experience managing venues such as theirs.

 

27.      Mr Dennis Rogers explained that the new General Manager, Mr Ruben Santos had become the new DPS (Designated Premises Supervisor). They had upgraded the CCTV system to cover blind spots and the new security team would be wearing body cameras. They had put all staff through Welfare And Vulnerability Engagement (WAVE) training again and had all staff booked in on the following Monday for crime scene preservation training. Mr Dennis Rogers noted that they had suggested some minor variations for the summary hearing.

 

28.      Mr Dennis Rogers stated that they had taken the incident seriously and had put all changes in place immediately. Mr Dennis Rogers stated that they were a family business and would be impacted financially should their licence be suspended and would work with the Licensing Authority and Police going forward to make any further necessary changes.

 

29.      The Sub-Committee asked, when employing the original security company, whether they had done any research into them. Mr Dennis Rogers confirmed that they were a professional company with SIA (Security Industry Authority) trained individuals. 

 

30.      The Sub-Committee asked Mr Elliott Rogers to run through the events of the night of the incident. Mr Elliott Rogers stated that the venue was opened at 17:00 by the assistant manager and there was a total of ten staff on duty that evening, including bar staff, security officers/door staff and a supervisor supporting the assistant manager. The victim entered the Premises at approximately 22:30 and was sat on the ground floor. At midnight the victim went downstairs to the basement floor where the toilets are located along with further seating and a cloak room and entered the male toilets. After security were alerted to the incident by a member of the public, both the victim and suspect were brought up to the ground floor fire exit door together where the assistant manager was alerted.

 

31.      The Sub-Committee asked whether all staff working on the night had had WAVE training and how often training takes place. Mr Dennis Rogers confirmed that they had and all staff receive training when they start employment.

 

32.      The Sub-Committee asked what roles Mr Dennis Rogers and Mr Elliott Rogers hold in the running of the business. Mr Elliott Rogers explained that he was on the licence along with being a personal licence holder and ran operations and was in the office most days of the week. Mr Dennis Rogers explained that he was on site Thursday to Saturday and would also speak to managers at their weekly team meeting and before and during every shift. Neither Elliott Rogers nor Dennis Rogers were on site the night of the incident. Mr Elliott Rogers stated that the general manager should have been on site that evening.

 

33.      The Sub-Committee asked how many customers were in the venue the night of the incident. Mr Elliott Rogers stated that it was not busy.

 

34.      The Sub-Committee asked Mr Elliott Rogers when he first became aware of the previous GBH incident. Mr Elliott Rogers stated that he had not been aware of the previous incident until after the incident of the 4May 2024.

 

35.      The Sub-Committee asked whether the security officers were spoken to after the first incident. Mr Elliott Rogers stated that he believed this was the responsibility of the general manager.

 

36.      The Sub-Committee asked how many other incidents were logged in the incident logbook that didn’t meet the threshold of calling the Police. Mr Andy Banon stated that he had looked through the logbook on taking the role as new security and there were no other incidents of serious assault.

 

37.      The Sub-Committee asked at what point did the security team or other staff become aware of the incident. Mr Elliott Rogers stated that from the CCTV it is clear that the two security staff became aware when both the victim and suspect were brought upstairs.

 

38.      The Sub-Committee asked what steps the owners took to ensure staff understood the conditions of the licence. Mr Elliott Rogers stated that managers were taken through the conditions of the licence upon employment.

 

Submissions by the PLH (Shadow Licence)

 

39.      Mr Niall McCann, Solicitor appearing on behalf of the Landlord explained as the shadow licence holder and landlord, they visit the Premises and speak with the tenant regularly. Mr McCann stated that they only became aware of the incident on the 15May when receiving the papers for the expedited review hearing.

 

40.      Mr McCann requested that no action be taken to suspend the shadow licence as all concerns were related to operational management. Mr McCann stated that they would cooperate fully with the Police and the main PLH.

 

41.      Mr McCann stated that if we were to seek a transfer of the licence we feel it will be refused. In any event there is a condition on the licence which stipulates that it cannot come into effect until the Main Licence is lapsed, revoked or a minor variation application made which will not be heard within 28 days. 

 

42.      Mr McCann advised that the landlord wanted to know what the next steps are and to see it in writing before proper submissions were made in writing ahead of the full review. We therefore ask for no action to be taken regarding the shadow licence because the concerns raised relate to operational management issues.

 

43.      Mr Chaim Aziz explained that as Managing Director on behalf of the owner he meets with Mr Dennis Rogers at the Premises once a month and had not had any issues up until this incident.

 

Further questioning by the Sub-Committee

 

44.      Mr Horatio Chance the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee asked Mr Elliott Rogers how soon new staff were inducted and received training and what form that training took. Mr Elliott Rogers explained that they would attend a meeting where training would take place before working a trial shift.

 

45.      Mr Elliott Rogers explained that they would receive online training and in-person training from other staff. Mr Dennis Rogers interjected by saying that the new security team would be delivering new training to all staff. Mr Andy Banon said this would include workshops, WAVE, Ask for Angela, alcohol and drug awareness and conflict management.

 

46.      The Sub-Committee asked whether part of the training would be how to secure a crime scene. Mr Andy Banon explained that this would also be covered in their training.

 

47.      Mr Chance posed another question and asked how often the toilets were checked prior to the incident. Mr Elliott Rogers confirmed that they were supposed to be checked every 30 minutes in addition to a walk around the area by the manager or supervisor.

 

48.      In summing up for the PLH, Mr Dennis Rogers reiterated that they had implemented many changes since the incident. Mr Dennis Rogers stressed that it would be very difficult to have their licence suspended as an independent business owner in Soho. Mr Elliot Rogers added that they run many local and charity events and were an asset to the community. Mr Dennis Rogers stated that they were happy to implement other changes immediately such as recording all customers entering the Premises.

 

49.      Before summing up, Mr Solimani added for the avoidance of doubt the following corrections: the incident lasted for six minutes as opposed to four minutes as stated by the owners. It was also stated that it was difficult to detain suspects when victims do not wish to press charges, the victim in this incident did however wish to press charges therefore the suspect should have been detained.

 

50.      Mr Elliott Rogers stated that he only became aware of the ABH incident after this incident occurred, however the Police had emailed Mr Elliott Rogers on the 29 April 2024 regarding the ABH to which he responded that they should contact Louche management.

 

51.      In summing up for the PLH (Shadow Licence) Mr McCann had nothing further to add.

 

52.      In summing up for the Police, Mr Solimani stated that the PLH did not take the correct steps to keep their customers safe. As owners it was their responsibility to oversee that their staff were doing their jobs correctly, in particular Mr Elliott Rogers who at the time of the incident was the DPS. Mr Solimani noted that the security team should have been changed immediately following the previous ABH incident and the Police do not trust that the new security team is enough to protect and prevent further crime occurring at the Premises. Mr Solimani added that the other venue run by Mr Elliott Rogers and Mr Dennis Rogers had been in breach of licensing conditions and had been served a section 19 notice. This stated Mr Solimani showed a pattern of irresponsibility, recklessness and lack of regard for the licensing regime. He therefore asked that the licence be suspended accordingly.

 

53.      The Chair then adjourned the meeting for the Sub-Committee to deliberate. After a short adjournment the Sub-Committee reconvened at 13:05 to announce its decision.

 

Conclusions and reasons of the Sub-Committee

 

54.      The Licensing Authority received a valid application for an expedited review under Section 53 A-C of the Licensing Act 2003, from the Police on 15 May 2024.

 

55.      The Sub-Committee recognised that the proceedings set out in the Act for reviewing premises licences represent a key protection for the community when problems associated with crime and disorder were occurring.  The outcome of the review would be determined at the full hearing.  However, today the Sub-Committee must determine what steps, if any, were necessary to take pending the full review.

 

56.      The Act provided the Licensing Authority with powers that it may exercise as specified in the Sub-Committee report.  The Sub-Committee had to decide what interim steps were necessary to take, to address the immediate problems with the Premises, in particular the likelihood of serious crime from occurring pending the full review.

 

57.      The Sub-Committee noted but was not limited to the following comments made by the Police:-

 

  • The incident actually lasted for 6 minutes.
  • We were told by the owner that he only become aware of the ABH incident after notice of this hearing came up. This is not true as the Police emailed him after the incident and his response was to contact management.
  • They can say how they will take safety seriously now but it is about trust in the middle of soho serving alcohol essentially trading as a nightclub.
  • The owners have to take ultimate responsibility rather than listing other people’s failures. The manager just had one day where they didn’t take their job seriously.
  • It is the job of the owners to oversee their employees and ensure public safety is taken seriously.
  • Clearly they are not adequately trained or taking their jobs seriously.
  • We have been told that there will be a new DPS which shows they did not think the previous one was capable.
  • We had this incident with ABH where security should have detained the suspect. After that incident, the security should have changed, and it would have prevented this serious incident from occurring.
  • We want to protect safety over the next few weeks by seeking a suspension of the licence.
  • We do not trust the Premises to hire the right people.
  • They do run other premises, that other venue has been breaching that licence too and has been visited by the Police. That premises has also had a section 19 notice served for breaching licensing conditions.

 

 

 

58.      The Sub-Committee noted but was not limited to the following comments made by the main PLH:-

 

·       The Premises has a high turn-over of staff with 18 staff currently employed of which seven are personal licence holders.

  • The Premises opened at 17.00 on the day in question.
  • There is a General Manager and two Assistant General Managers employed.
  • The General Manager who was on the rota to be working that night was not. He is currently working his notice and we have already employed his successor Mr Santos. 
  • The Premises holds Cabaret events, but it is not your usual nightclub. 
  • There are 3 members of staff on the bar and a door supervisor. They increase in numbers as the night progresses.
  • The Premises is split into two venues, upstairs and basement.
  • 1 door staff is upstairs, 1 on the entrance and 1 downstairs.
  • There were 10 staff in total including door staff on the night.
  • The victim entered the Premises at 22.30 and was seated on the ground floor.
  • The suspect went downstairs around midnight towards the toilets.
  • Where the bar is, there are blind spots so you cannot exactly see certain areas.
  • It is quite common for people to come in and out due to smokers so it was not that suspicious for the suspect to be seen milling around.
  • There is a cloakroom manned by one staff member in the basement, however it does not directly look at the toilets.
  • There is one cubicle in the men’s toilet with urinals.
  • There was no one else in the toilet when the incident happened. It looks like someone went in soon after.
  • The Incident happened at 00:04.
  • One security guard took both the suspect and victim upstairs and there was a miscommunication when handed them over to the other security guard.
  • He did not follow procedure as he failed to radio over when going up the stairs. He thought there had been a fight and not a rape.
  • All staff have now had WAVE training.
  • We have put everything in place that would be put into place. By suspending the licence, the business would have to stop trading. We have events booked, a LGBT event tonight. We have a lot of local events.

 

59.      The Sub-Committee noted and considered the wrath of new measures the Main PLH had taken since the incident. These measures included removing the old security company and employing a new one, a new management team and DPS, refresher training for staff and a slight revision of some of the licensing conditions which failed to meet the approval of the Police.

 

60.      When determining the matter, the Sub-Committee’s role first and foremost is to ensure that licence holders are complying with their licensing conditions and promoting the licensing objectives. However, despite these new measures being put in place within the last week, at this point in time the Sub-Committee does not have the faith and confidence in the PLH to run his Premises that will promote the licensing objectives. It is fair to say that the new management and security have yet to be tried and tested in order for the Sub-Committee to have that trust and confidence restored to ensure that another serious incident is not repeated on the Premises.

 

61.      This was a serious matter for the Sub-Committee to consider which ultimately boils down to the trust and confidence in the PLH’s ability to run his own Premises. Operating a night club premises in the heart of busy Soho and in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone admittedly has its challenges but it is all about maintaining trust and ensuring that customers who frequent the Premises are reasonably safe for the purposes of being there. It is therefore imperative and goes without saying that a licence holder must have the necessary safeguards in place to ensure the safe welfare of its customers at all times as well as full compliance of licensing conditions so that the licensing objectives are not undermined.

 

62.      The Sub-Committee strongly recommends that the Main PLH obtains independent legal advice in respect of this matter and for the imminent full review hearing.

 

63.      Having carefully considered the application for an expedited review and the evidence presented by the Police both verbally and in writing, the Sub-Committee concluded that the Premises was associated with serious crime and it was necessary to take the following steps:

 

1.              To suspend the Main Licence with immediate effect.

2.              The Sub-Committee did not consider it appropriate or proportionate to suspend the shadow licence for the reasons explained above by the Police and Landlord.

3.        To exclude the sale of alcohol from the scope of the licence;

4.        To remove the Designated Premises Supervisor.

5.        In view of the seriousness of this case, it was necessary for this Interim  Decision to take immediate effect.

 

64.      The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence of the Police contained within section 4 of the application form giving details of the serious crime at the Premises which reads:-

          

          On Saturday 4 May 2024 a male known to the Police (Victim) was at Louche Bar with friends. Shortly after midnight he went to the downstairs toilets and was using one of the cubicles. Another male (Suspect) has repeatedly knocked on the door and on exiting the cubicle to let the Suspect in, the victim has been forced back inside the cubicle by the Suspect. He has then endured a period of time during which he was repeatedly assaulted including sexual assault and ending with the Suspect forcing the Victim to perform Oral Sex on him. This is being investigated as a category Stranger 1 Rape with offences of Rape, Attempted Rape, false imprisonment and ABH. The Victim throughout made multiple attempts to escape and the ordeal was only stopped when a member of the public heard the victims cries for help and got security. The Victim, in a clear state of distress, disclosed to the security that there had been the Victim of a serious sexual assault. The security officer made the decision to escort both the victim and suspect upstairs to the front door. The Victim and suspect were left stood together, whilst there is a conversation between two security officers. The Suspect was then led outside, whereby he ran off and away from the venue. There appears to have been a delay in calling Police, as the manager in charge at first calls the general manager (who was off duty) to ask what to do.  Police Licensing were informed of this serious incident in the week commencing 6 May. On the 7 May the premises was sent an incident report form with a request to complete a detailed account. A meeting was arranged at the venue for Wednesday 8 May. Police Licensing Officers attended the premises and met the general manager. Officers were shown the CCTV of the incident, however, there has been no record made in the incident log (This being a breach of one of the premises licence conditions – Condition 24 on the premises licence). On discussing the incident, the manager continually advised officers to speak to the owners. Officers also discussed the premises licence with the manager to which he appeared to have no knowledge of the conditions. A further condition breach was identified as the general manager advised officers when asked that they were not satisfying this condition as they were not adhering to any of the points listed in (a) –(f):-

 

           On any evening where the premises or part of the premises are open for the purpose of music and dance, alcohol shall not be sold or supplied to persons entering that part of the premises except to:

(a) Persons who have paid a minimum admission fee of at least £5.00 Monday to Thursday and £7.00 Friday and Saturday for music, dancing and entertainment, such charges not to be credited against consumables; or

(b) Persons who have paid a minimum annual admission fee of at least £150 payable in advance for music, dancing and entertainment (not to be credited against consumables). A list of all persons who have paid an annual admission fee will be held at reception for inspection by the relevant authority; or

(c) Persons attending a private function/event booked at least 24 hours in advance, where the functions organiser's name and address is to be kept at reception for inspection by Police;

(d) Artistes or persons employed on the premises;

(e) Bona fide guests of the management not to exceed 10% of capacity, a list of whom shall be kept at reception for inspection by relevant authorities; or

(f) Persons taking full table meals a list of whom are held at reception for

inspection by the relevant authorities.

 

When asked about this officers were told to speak to the owners. As a result of the condition breach a Section 19 was issued. On the 9 May Police Licensing Officers were made aware that the male suspect had been arrested, charged and remanded for a number of offences. However, officers were also made aware that the same male Suspect, went on to sexually assault another victim at another location. (This location was not a licensed premises). It was also advised to officers that as a direct result of the suspect not being detained at the time, officers from CID spent three days following the suspect movements from place to place using private CCTV, Thankfully a venue where the Suspect was seen to enter had ID Scan and as a result the Suspect scanned his ID in one entry. These details were given to Police and the Suspect was arrested. This was the second occasion that the premises had come to Police notice in recent weeks. On Sunday 28 April 2024 at approximately 01:30 hours (Saturday trading night) a fight occurred at the location whereby a male suspect head butted a male victim. Both the victim and male were brought outside. The victim decided to call Police at which point the suspect fled the scene. This was another example of failings by the operator by not detaining a suspect in the assault, and not calling the Police. Any victim care fell short of what is expected from a licensed premises in the City of Westminster. A meeting was arranged to discuss the incidents with the venue owner on Monday 13 May. At this meeting we gave the premises operator the opportunity to have their say and explain their version of events. This was done at Westminster City Hall. Due to the seriousness of the offence, the multiple breaches of the licence and the clear lack of control of the premises, the Police believe that the premises have failed to uphold the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. It is also believed that the premises will continue to fail to promote the licensing objectives going forward. As such, the Police believe that the premises is a risk to the public and it is necessary to suspend the premises licence until the full hearing. The premises also has a current shadow licence – 23/04556/LIPL – This is an application to review this also”.

          

65.   The Sub-Committee considered that taking all these factors into account indicated that the Premises was associated with serious crime. A sexual assault taking place on the Premises was a serious matter and the Sub-Committee concluded that it was necessary and proportionate to Suspend the Main Licence to prevent serious crime with immediate effect to promote the licensing objectives. 

66.   In summary, the Sub-Committee is satisfied that the Premises was associated with serious crime and it was necessary and proportionate for the interim steps outlined to be taken and for this Decision to have immediate effect in order to prevent serious crime occurring and to promote the licensing objectives.

If the Premises Licence Holder is unhappy with the decision, he is  entitled to submit a representation against the interim steps taken by the Sub-Committee.  If a representation is received the Licensing Authority would convene a further interim hearing within 48 hours of receipt of the representation.   The premises licence holder and chief officer of Police would receive advance notice of this hearing.

 

The full review hearing would take place within 28 days of receipt of the Police application to review the licence. Details of this hearing would be provided by the Licensing Authority.

 

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

17 May 2024

 

Supporting documents: