Agenda item

Proposal:      Application to vary a premises licence to specify an Individual as                 Designated Premises Supervisor under the Licensing Act 2003

Location:      Miahs Panghourne, 26 Reading Road, RG8 7LY

Applicant:     Mouadjul Miah

The Sub-Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 3(1)) concerning Licensing Application 18/01434/LQN in respect of an application to vary the premises licence of Miah’s Pangbourne.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Emilia Matheou (Licensing Officer, West Berkshire Council), Mr Jon Payne (Solicitor), Mr Mouadjul Miah (hereafter referred to as Mr Miah Junior) (Applicant) and PC Declan Smith, Thames Valley Police (Responsible Authority) addressed the Sub-Committee on this application.

Emilia Matheou in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application to vary the premises license to specify an Individual as a Designated Premises Supervisor was received by the licensing authority on 8 October 2018.

·         Thames Valley Police lodged an objection to the application on the grounds that it would undermine the licensing objective to prevent crime and disorder.

·         The Sub-Committee should have regard to the representations made under the previous agenda item.

Mr Jon Payne in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:

·         The Sub-Committee should consider the information and arguments shared under the previous agenda item as they were relevant to this application.

·         Mr Miah Junior had a right to hold a license and a right to be a Designated Premises Supervisor.

·         The threshold for exceptional circumstances had not been met so the Sub-Committee should consider the application on its merits.

·         Mr Miah Junior’s links to his father were not relevant.

Councillor Jeff Beck noted that in the application, Mr Miah Junior had stated his position in the business was a manager and asked when this came into effect. Mr Payne advised that it was the same date the application was made.

Councillor Beck asked what Mr Miah Junior was doing in the lead up to the Home Office visit at the premises. Mr Payne advised that he was running other businesses such as the Sun Inn near Basingstoke. He was not at the premises at the time of the Home Office visit. Councillor Beck asked what involvement Mr Miah Junior had had with the business in the few weeks prior to the Home Office visit. Mr Miah Junior stated that he had not attended the premises for around a month.

PC Declan Smith asked what involvement Mr Miah Junior had with the Sun Inn, who replied that he oversaw the business and had a head chef and front line manager. Mr Payne advised that Mr Miah Junior was a director of the company which owned the Sun Inn.

PC Smith asked what experience the applicant had which would qualify him to be an Individual Designated Premises Supervisor. Mr Miah Junior advised that he had experience at the Sun Inn. Mr Payne stated that he had the experience required by the Licensing Act, had completed training and had a criminal record check. It would be wrong to suggest that additional qualification was needed. Mr Miah Junior had experience running the Sun Inn and had worked in a licensed premises. PC Smith asked when Mr Miah Junior’s license for the Sun Inn was granted. Mr Miah Junior advised that it was around a year.

PC Smith asked whether it was Mr Miah Junior’s intention to train staff in the licensing objectives. Mr Payne objected to the style of questioning and expressed the view it was cross examination. In any event a Designated Premises Supervisor was not responsible for training staff.

PS Smith asked whether Mr Miah knew what proxy purchasing was. Mr Payne expressed the view that the police should not use the Sub-Committee as a fishing expedition and there had been no allegation regarding a sale to a person purchasing alcohol on behalf of someone underage.

PC Smith in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:

·         Thames Valley Police were of the view that there were exceptional circumstances surrounding the case due to the direct links between the applicant and his father, Mr Miah Senior.

·         The objection was on the grounds that the application was an attempt to undermine the crime prevention licensing objective.

·         If Mr Miah Junior were allowed by the Sub-Committee to become the Designated Premises Supervisor, this would undermine the licensing process.

Mr Payne, in summing up made the following points:

·         To undermine meant to destroy.

·         Exceptional circumstances would include a personal license holder who was permitted to continue trading despite convictions. This case did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances.

·         Mr Miah Junior had turned around the business and ensured that right to work checks were in place. The issues identified through inspections had been resolved.

·         The police had not provided evidence to substantiate all comments in their objection and some elements were not relevant.

·         Mr Miah Junior had not been at the premises at the time of the Home Office visit.

The Sub-Committee retired at 11.42 to make its decision and the meeting was closed.

Having taken the representations into account, the Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that Application No.18/01433/LQN be refused, for the following reasons:

The Sub- Committee had regard to all the Representations made by the Applicant, by the Applicant though his Legal Representative Mr Payne and by the Responsible Authority Thames Valley Police who had objected to the variation of the premises licence to specify an individual Designated Premises Supervisor.

The Sub- Committee had regard to the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (April 2018) and in particular to paragraph 4.39

The Sub- Committee also had regard to the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Sub- Committee noted the important role a Designated Premises Supervisor plays in upholding the Prevention of Crime and Disorder licencing objective and the licensing objectives as a whole

The Sub- Committee noted that the Applicant has held a Personal Licence since the beginning of 2018. They also noted that the Applicant had not held the position of a Designated Premises Supervisor at a licenced premises. It was noted that evidence was given that the Applicant was a Director of a limited company which held a premises licence at another licenced premises, but the Sub- Committee determined that the Applicant’s involvement in this licenced premises was far from clear and when asked, the Applicant appeared evasive. The Sub- Committee believed that fuller and clearer evidence as to the Applicant’s experience and involvement with this licenced premises would have assisted them in their deliberations. The Sub- Committee also determined that evidence as to any licensing training undertaken or Certificates obtained by the Applicant would also have assisted the Sub- Committee in their deliberations.

The Sub- Committee noted that in relation to this particular licenced premises the Applicant’s evidence was that he was not involved in any significant way with the management of the property up until he became manager of the licenced premises on the 3rd October 2018, and then a Director on the 20th October 2018. The Sub- Committee determined that he lacked the necessary experience and on being questioned by the Sub-Committee he showed a lack of understanding of the responsibilities he would be undertaking as the Designated Premises Supervisor for this particular licenced premises.

For all the reasons given above, the Sub-Committee determined to reject Application No.18/01433/LQN as it was considered that it was necessary to do so for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.