LICENSING PANEL HEARING

Record of Hearing held on

16 February 2007

PRESENT:      Councillor P Rogerson (Chairman)

ALSO PRESENT AT THE HEARING:     Mr S Broome - Licensing Officer, Wycombe District Council

OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE:      Mrs S Wilson - Principal Solicitor, Wycombe District Council

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chairman referred to the procedures to be adopted for the Hearing and requested any matters to be raised of a procedural nature.  At this juncture the legal representative for Threshers expressed concern at the manner in which the review application had been brought to the attention of his client.  Reference was made to an alleged lack of consultation between the Police, Trading Standards and Threshers with a letter being incorrectly addressed to the licence holder at Threshers, which resulted in the Company only being aware of the proposed review at a late stage.  Whilst the Licensing Officer of Wycombe District Council had been helpful in attempting to clarify matters, it was considered that the suggested delay and lack of any consultation between the Police and Threshers had undermined the process as described in Home Office Guidelines.  

During discussion on the points raised the Panel was informed that the process relating to the handling of licensing panel hearings was contained in the regulations to the Licensing Act 2003 and it was agreed that this process was not being questioned.  The criticism related to whether the Police and Trading Standards should have dealt with the issue differently, which was a matter of evidence and could be dealt with during the Hearing.

The Panel noted this advice and it was also noted that the representatives of Threshers were prepared to go ahead with the Hearing, but it was felt appropriate to call a short adjournment for the Panel to consider the issues raised.

The Panel returned and the Chairman informed the parties present that the Hearing would continue.  It was felt necessary for a Hearing to be held under the regulations and the criticisms raised with regard to the parties’ conduct would be considered as a matter of evidence and a decision would be reached on that basis.

The Panel met to conduct a hearing into the application by Thames Valley Police under s.51 of the Licensing Act 2003 for a review of the premises licence as detailed in the report submitted.

The grounds of the review application were that the licensing objectives in relation to crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm had been breached by an alleged underage sale of alcohol.

During a detailed discussion on the application the opportunity was given to Thames Valley Police and the representatives on behalf of Threshers to make a statement of their case and to ask relevant questions of each other.  Panel members also discussed the issues involved with the parties concerned.  A representative of Trading Standards presented video evidence which was shown to the Panel with the agreement of Threshers representatives present.  The video showed two juveniles aged 13 and 14½ years purchasing alcohol for which fixed penalty notices had been issued.  Trading Standards confirmed that they had only carried out two test purchases at the premises during that period and fixed penalty notices had been issued to staff on both occasions.  

Discussions ensued on the necessity for appropriate training to be given to staff, and representatives for Threshers outlined to the Panel the importance of training for the company and described the processes in place with regard to training records and the use made of the refusals book and the management processes in place at central office to recognise any significant trends in this regard.  The company representatives reiterated that, whilst the offences were admitted, the view remained that the problems might have been mitigated by dialogue between the responsible bodies.  In response to this the representative of Thames Valley Police referred to the fact of the two successful test purchases which should, he considered, have instituted a more robust response from the company.  The company confirmed that their member of staff had informed them about the fixed penalty notice in December 2006, but they had taken a decision to wait until formal notification from the Police before taking any action.

During further discussion reference was made to the conditions proposed by Thames Valley Police in respect of the licence and whilst it was pointed out by Thresher representatives that the majority of the suggestions were already in place, the following conditions could be agreed:-

At the conclusion of the discussion the representatives of Thames Valley Police, Threshers and the Licensing Officer of Wycombe District Council left the meeting and the Panel went into private session to consider its decision.  

During consideration in private session the Panel revisited the concerns raised by the representatives of Threshers.  However, Panel members reiterated the view that the Licensing Panel had been properly convened.

The Panel then considered matters with particular reference to the protection of children from harm and the prevention of crime and disorder and, noting that two test purchases had been successful and two offences admitted.  The Panel took into consideration the licensing objectives under the Act, National Guidance and the Council’s licensing policy.  The company’s commitment to training was noted; however despite this training two offences had been committed, which led the Panel to conclude that the effectiveness of the training needed to be monitored, especially in relation to part time staff.  It was the conclusion of the Panel that a proportionate response to the review application would be to impose conditions on the licence.

It was therefore:

(The Hearing commenced at 10.30am and concluded at 1.00pm)

_____________________

Chairman