Agenda item

The Licensing Authority has received an application to review the premises licence for the premises known as ‘Abracadabra’. 3 High Street, Christchurch, BH23 1AB.

This matter is brought before the Sub-Committee for determination.

Attendance:

BCP Council:

Cllr Chapmanlaw – Observing for training purposes (attending remotely)

Tania Jardim – Licensing Officer

Johanne McNamara – Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee

Michelle Cutler – Clerk to the Sub-Committee

The Chair made introductions and explained the procedure for the hearing, which was agreed by all parties.

The Licensing Officer presented the report, a copy of which had been circulated and a copy of which appears as Appendix A to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Sub-Committee was asked to consider an application for a review of the premises licence for the premises known as ‘Abracadabra’, 3 High Street, Christchurch, BH23 1AB. The application for review had been submitted by Dorset Police as a result of the premises breaching their licence conditions, despite repeated attempts by Dorset Police and other Responsible Authorities to support and encourage compliance.The application related to the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, and the protection of children from harm licensing objectives.

A supplementary pack of information had been submitted on behalf of the applicant after the report was published, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix B to these minutes in the Minute Book.

The following persons attended the Hearing and addressed the Sub-Committee to expand on the points made in their written submissions:

Sargeant Gareth Gosling, Dorset Police, the applicant

Ms Louise Busfield – Dorset Police, observing

June Clarke - JMC Licensing Consultants, representing the premises

Mr Yunis Mohammad – Premises Licence Holder

Ms Holly Gooding – Mr Mohammad’s witness and partner

The Sub-Committee asked various questions of all parties present and was grateful for the responses received. All parties had the opportunity to ask questions.

During the hearing the Sub-Committee went into an exempt session. The Sub-Committee passed the following resolution:

Resolved that under Section 14 (2) of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 and Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs such interest in disclosing the information.

This item was restricted by virtue of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Exempt information – Categories 1 (information relating to any individual) and 2 (information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual).

The Sub-Committee went back into public session. All parties were invited to sum up before the Sub-Committee retired to make its decision. Before concluding the Hearing, the Legal Advisor advised all parties of the right of appeal. 

RESOLVED that having considered the application to review the premises licence for the premises known as ‘Abracadabra’, 3 High Street, Christchurch. BH23 1AB, the Sub-Committee has decided to revoke the premises licence on the grounds that the premises are not upholding the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, and the protection of children from harm licensing objectives.

Reasons for Decision

The Sub-Committee gave detailed consideration to all of the information which had been submitted before the hearing and contained in the report for Agenda Item 5, in particular the written evidence provided by Dorset Police in support of the application for review and the verbal submissions made at the hearing by Sergeant Gareth Gosling on behalf of Dorset Police Licensing, by Mrs June Clarke, licensing representative for Mr Yunis Mohammad , the Premises Licence Holder, by Mr Yunis Mohammad himself and Ms Holly Gooding, witness, and the responses to questions given at the hearing by all parties.

In determining the review, the Sub-Committee considered the options available as set out in the recommendations of the report and the Licensing Act 2003 and acknowledged that it was only able to take into account matters directly relevant to the licensing objectives in respect of the operation of the premises licence.

The Sub-Committee felt that the premises had failed to uphold the licensing objectives, that there had been persistent breaches of the licence since May 2023 and that the premises had failed to act on advice provided and did not fully engage with Dorset Police to address issues that had arisen, the Sub-Committee felt that they had no confidence that the premises could promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of children from harm.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mrs Clarke that Ms Holly Gooding, Mr Mohammad’s partner, had offered to take over as the Designated Premises Supervisor. Ms Gooding confirmed she would be happy to do this as Mr Mohammad struggled with the legal side of licensing due to a language barrier. The Sub-Committee did not think this would address the issues raised in the review as removing Mr Mohammad as the DPS would still leave him as the Premises Licence Holder and Ms Gooding had not received the training required to be a DPS.

The Sub-Committee was particularly concerned that Mr Mohammad was unable to list the four licensing objectives when requested to do so.

The Sub-Committee shared the view of Dorset Police that none of the other available options would address the reasons for the review and that these options would not be appropriate in upholding the Licensing Objectives, as follows:

Leave the licence in its current state.

In considering the evidence, representations and verbal submissions made during the hearing by all parties, the Licensing Sub-Committee agreed that taking no action would not be a sufficient response to ensure that the licensing objectives are upheld due to the persistent breaches of the Licence and Mr Mohammad’s acceptance that he struggled with the legalities of licensing due to a language barrier.

The Sub-Committee share the view of Dorset Police that the premises continues to undermine the licensing objectives. The concerns identified by Dorset Police and those highlighted by partner agencies and the public demonstrate that taking no action is not an appropriate determination following this hearing.

Modification/addition of conditions of the premises licence:

No modification or addition of conditions were offered up by Mrs Clarke and the Sub-Committee did not consider that there were any conditions which could address the concerns raised. The Licensing Sub-Committee agreed that there have been persistent breaches of the current licence and noted it had been stated that Mr Mohammad struggled with the legal side of licensing.

Exclusion of a licensable activity from the scope of the licence

The Sub-Committee noted that the exclusion of the licensable activity from the  premises licence was unlikely to reduce the likelihood of the licensing objectives being undermined. If no licensable activities were taking place the premises could remain operational as a convenience store but many of the concerns highlighted by Dorset Police would remain.

The removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor from the licence:

The Sub-Committee acknowledged Mrs Clarke’s offer to replace Mr Mohammad as the DPS with Ms Holly Gooding, however, Ms Gooding had not received the appropriate training. The Sub-Committee noted that Mr Mohammad is both the DPS and the PLH. The premises operated under Mr Mohammad has a history of persistent breaches of the current Licence. Removal of the DPS would still leave Mr Mohammad as the PLH. The Sub-Committee felt that removal of the DPS would not address the issues raised in the review.

Suspension of the Licence:

The Sub-Committee considered the suspension of the premises licence to allow a new DPS to be trained but agreed that the issues and concerns raised by Dorset Police and the responses given by Mr Mohammad during the hearing did not provide them with confidence that the licensing objectives would be met under any circumstances. The Licensing Sub-Committee was not satisfied that suspending the licence would address concerns or promote the Licensing Objectives as it did not change those responsible for the management of the premises and the issues of crime and disorder and breaches of the Licence associated at the premises. Once again, the Licensing Sub-Committee noted concerns that it was stated that Mr Mohammad struggled with the legal side of licensing.

The Sub-Committee agreed that the only suitable outcome was to revoke the premises licence due to Mr Mohammad’s lack of understanding of the 4 licensing objectives and his failure to engage with Dorset Police to promote the licensing objectives. In addition, the Sub-Committee had concerns about the persistent breaches noted during the visits in August and October 2023.

The Sub-Committee accepts that Dorset Police have identified and continue to receive reports of concerns associated with this premises and that no further engagement tools are available to Dorset Police that will support the management of this premises to improve their operating practices to enable compliance.

In making this decision the Sub-Committee have had regard to the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council Licensing Policy, paragraphs 11.27 and 11.28 of the revised guidance, as set out by the Secretary of State and the licensing objectives, as set out in the Licensing Act 2003 and agreed that revocation of the Licence was a proportionate response to the issues raised in the review.

Right of appeal

An appeal against the review decision may be made to a Magistrates Court within 21 days of the appellant beingnotified of the Licensing Authority’s determination on the review. An appeal may be made by the premises licence holder, the Chief Officer of Police and/or any interested person who made relevant representations.