26/08/2022
**Please see below a statement from my Solicitor regarding yesterdays Council Hearing**
Natasha
I am sorry to hear that the events of yesterday have been so heavily misreported and that in consequence that you have been subjected to some unpleasantness on social media. To make matters tolerably clear, I set out the reality:
As you are aware, the Council failed to provide us with a copy of any police report as they are required to by law in advance of the hearing. Accordingly, that report, whatever it may state, was not permitted to be taken into account by the Licensing Board (despite some members having some evident difficulty with that proposition). The Police Report would never be made public. I note with some irritation the manner in which the public/private nature of this process has been discussed in the media. The reality is that this matter ought to have been private and the papers ought never to have been published on the Board’s website; another unfortunate error by this Licensing Board’s staff.
The Licensing Standards Officer’s report has been quoted at length in the media reports. However, as you are aware, the LSO was, to her great disservice and embarrassment, required to accept that she had materially misled the Board, in particular in reporting that you had committed offences in relation to section 1 of the 2005 Act and that you had condoned unlawful outside drinking. She had said that these offences were committed and that this was evidence of that you were not running the premises in a manner consistent with the objective of preventing crime and disorder. The LSO had to admit that, despite being a former police officer, she had made those statements without ever having seen anyone drinking outside, nor having any evidence that any person had on any occasion acted in that manner. Accordingly, she had no basis whatsoever to say that any offence of the nature stated had ever occurred. As I say, embarrassing and worrying in equal measure. You may wish to consider making a formal complaint about the officer, as this demonstrates in my view that either she is hopelessly incompetent and out of her depth, or that she has deliberately sought to mislead the Board by making accusations of which she knew there was no evidence. Either are very serious matters which ought to concern the Board. Indeed, the LSO also reported as fact that there had been anti-social behaviour because of the pub’s operation, but she had not carried out any investigation into complaints received and had nothing to say in response to the evidence that these were vexatious complaints, some of which could not possibly be correct as a matter of fact (such as the complaint that noise had been an issue for the past year from May 2022, when in fact the pub had been closed since 2020 and had only been open for 2 weeks).
There was no evidence led to support the claim of watering down vodka. There were not “complaints” about this and indeed the environmental Health Officer expressly paid it no attention – it did not feature in any report.
The incendiary claim about using a bike lock to secure fire doors was another terribly irresponsible inaccuracy recorded by the LSO. At no time were the fire doors broken or inoperable or secured other than by the push lock bars. The bike lock was simply attached to one door’s handle and had been so for many, many years. The Fire Officer had himself commented that it was obvious that the lock had not been used to secure anything given its rusted state. The presence of the lock offered absolutely no impact on safe egress through the fire doors. Again, the making of statements which were simply not backed up by the facts was a highly regrettable feature of the LSO’s report.
There were accusations that planning permission was needed for the beer garden. Again, as you are aware, that is both factually and legally incorrect. The use of this beer garden as such does not require planning and the use has been listed on the operating plan for the whole time of your involvement. Again, another unfortunately misleading statement in the report, borne of a failure to understand the facts and the law – an irony given the LSO’s accusations directed at you.
The decision yesterday was disappointing. The correct decision in my view should have been to issue a warning. As you know, the decision was close, with the 3 male Board members finding unfitness and the 2 female Board members deciding that unfitness had not been established. On the information provided and discussed at Committee I am of the view that the female members assessed the matter accurately. The manner of the LSO’s inaccuracies certainly did not assist in providing the Board with an accurate statement of the facts; rather, it set out to paint a much more serious situation than the facts showed.
I trust this assists you in dispelling some of the poor quality journalism and social media hysteria which you have experienced in the last day or so.
Best regards
Jonny Nisbet
Principal & Solicitor Advocate
