Issue - meetings

Silks, 177-181 Rushey Green, Catford, SE6 4BD

Lewisham LBC, Licensing Committee

Application for review

DECISION NOTICE

1.    The Metropolitan Police (“the Police”) have submitted an application to review the premises licence for Silks, 177-181 Rushey Green, Catford, SE6 4BD (“the Premises”) on the grounds of preventing crime and disorder, preventing public nuisance and public safety.  The Police seek revocation of the licence or, as a fallback, removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor (“DPS”) and variations to the licence conditions.

2.    The premises licence is held by Walk Safe Security Services Ltd (“the PLH”).  The DPS is Sharna Johnson.

3.    The Licensing Committee held a remote hearing using Microsoft Teams on 6 October 2022 to consider the application which was adjourned, as a matter of fairness to the PLH, following the submission of late evidence by the police.  The parties were directed to file any further evidence in good time before today’s hearing.

4.    In making its decision, the Committee has taken into account all of the papers in the reports pack and the evidence and submissions presented by the parties at the hearing.  It has also taken into account the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Home Office’s statutory guidance.

5.    Before today’s (remote) hearing began, the PLH’s representative informed the Council’s officers that it would not be attending today’s hearing, stating that it was unlawful to conduct this hearing remotely and that it did not wish to participate in an unlawful hearing.  The Committee was advised that the hearing could lawfully proceed remotely and decided to proceed in the absence of the PLH.

6.    The Committee’s decision is to revoke the licence.  Its reasons are as follows:

·         The Committee read detailed evidence submitted by the Police which showed a number of serious incidents associated with the premises, including a number of shocking episodes of violent assaults which were very poorly managed by the Premises’ security team.  For instance, on 19 December 2021, an intoxicated customer was ejected from the Premises but not moved on.  The Premises’ security team did not call the police.  The customer attempted to ram the front door of the Premises with a Range Rover, mounting the pavement and putting pedestrians at risk of serious harm.  As a further example, on 30 April 2022, a female was attacked in the street by two customers (one of them male) of the Premises with a glass bottle which had been taken out of the Premises.  These and other incidents suggested to the Committee that the security arrangements at the Premises were completely inadequate.

·         The Police stated, and the Committee accepted, that the PLH had not taken responsibility for the management failings at the Premises.  For example, there was an alleged sexual assault at the Premises on 26 March 2022.  When the Police requested CCTV footage from the Premises, it turned out that there was no footage due to a system failure and that the incident would not have been captured in any event because the cameras  ...  view the full decision text for item 21

4.1      The Chair welcomed all parties to the Licensing Committee. She introduced those present, and outlined the procedure to be followed for the meeting.  At the request of the Chair, Mr Lewin explained that the Premises Licence Holder had informed officers that they would not be participating in the hearing because they objected to the use of a remote hearing. 

4.2     The Chair said this application was for the review of a premises licence for Silks which had been considered on 6 October 2022. At that meeting it was agreed that the decision be postponed to this meeting. A deadline was given to the applicant, the Police, and to the respondent, Silks, for the submission of all evidence. The evidence received from the Police had been sent to all members of the Committee and the videos received would be played at this meeting. Evidence had not been received from Silks. The Chair then invited Mr Lockett to introduce the application.

            Senior Licensing Officer 

4.3      Mr Lockett said that following receipt of this review, an application was also made for a minor variation to the premises licence by Walk Safe Security Services Ltd. (the licence holder). This application was included at pages 44- 55 in the agenda.

4.4      Mr Lockett said that this hearing was in relation to an application for the review of a licence made by the Metropolitan Police for Silks 177 – 181 Rushey Green Catford SE6 4BD.  The premises were alleged to be undermining the licensing objectives of the prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety and the Prevention of Public Nuisance. The Police were seeking the revocation of the licence. He outlined the options open to members of the Committee when making their decision.

            Applicant

4.5      Mr O’BrienO’Reilly presented the case for the Police. He said that the applicants sought revocation of the premises licence, based on the licensing objectives of the prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety & the Prevention of Public Nuisance. A serious incident had been associated with the premises which had undermined the licensing objectives. There were underlying problems at the premises and the management was so poor that revocation of the licence was the only course of action, otherwise the licensing objectives would not be promoted.

4.6      Mr O’BrienO’Reilly said that the chronology of incidents was set out in page 16 of the agenda. In summary he said that the repeated failure of management to comply with conditions on the current licence, had resulted in incidents that had taken place and undermined public safety and given rise to serious concerns of crime and disorder and public nuisance. There had been complaints from residents, the Police and local authority and every incident had an impact on Police resources.

4.7      Members were informed that on 19 December 2021 an intoxicated individual was ejected from Silks after having caused a disturbance inside the premises and making verbal threats. Security did not move him on and he remained to cause a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21