Agenda item

The Board had before them an application from Police Scotland seeking a review of the premises licence for the Victoria Bar, 1- 5 Menzies Road.

The Board heard from Mr Munro, Depute Clerk to the Board that, the Licensing Board may, if satisfied that a ground for review is established take  any of the following steps if they consider action necessary; to issue a written warning to the licence holder, make a variation of the licence, suspend the licence for such period as the Board may determine or revoke the licence.  Mr Munro also advised the Board that in the course of the hearing if the Board found that any personal licence holder had acted in a manner inconsistent with the licensing objectives they could hold a personal licence review hearing at a later date.

The Board heard from Sgt Flett, Police Scotland who summarised their application.  

Thereafter the Board heard from Mr McGowan, Solicitor on behalf of the Licence holder.   He commented that the premises had not come to the adverse attention of the Board previously. Mr McGowan added that it was a single incident and that there was no wider pattern of concern.  Mr McGowan stated that neither the premises licence holder nor their tenant was aware of the actions of Ms Allison.   He noted that Sgt Flett had confirmed that the tenant was absent on the evening that the incident took place and was in fact out of the country at the time.  He further advised that the premises licence holder distanced themselves from the actions of the individuals mentioned in the Police letter.   Mr McGowan reminded the Board that they were dealing with a premises licence review and asked the Board to separate the actions of the premises licence holder from those of the individuals involved.   He advised the Board that the tenant had terminated the employment of Ms Allison. In terms of a premises licence review Mr McGowan asked the Board to consider the actions of the premise licence holder rather than those of Ms Alison.  He stated that the licence holder could not be painted as a disinterested landlord when it came to observing the various Covid rules.  Mr McGowan refered to the papers that had been submitted to the Board and stated that these showed that the licence holder had been very supportive of all of the pubs they operated and had been in constant contact with the pubs to ensure that they were aware of and following various rules including a communication advising of the 6pm cut off.   He considered that the papers showed that the premises licence holder had been proactive to help and support tenants and these were the actions of a responsible landlord.  Out of 110 pubs that the premises licence holder operates the Victoria Bar is the only premises where a breach of the Covid regulations has taken place. 

Also, in the papers was a suite of documents which showed interactions specifically with the Victoria Bar and the due diligence and written reports by the Local Area Manager which showed a series of strong and significant communications with the premises.  Mr McGowan considered that the premises licence holder nor the tenant could not have foreseen that the incident would occur.  He added that if the Board accepted that the premises licence holder could not have foreseen the non-compliance, did they assume compliance with the 6pm rule or were they proactive?   Mr McGowan considered that there was proactivity not just in connection with the 6pm rule but in relation to all the various changes related to Covid.  The premises licence holder stands behind the tenant and consider that the is a good tenant and they wish to protect his business as well as the licence as an asset.   The premises licence holder believes that their tenant was unaware of the incident and that he did not condone it.   Mr McGowan gave an undertaking on behalf of the licence holder that every effort would be taken to ensure that such an incident doesn’t happen again. 

Mr McGowan then raised the point about whether a breach of covid regulation was in fact a licensing matter.   He made the observation that in this case it was not a licensing matter but more of an environmental health and police matter, however he stated that he wish the Board to put more weight on the wider point about the actions of the premises licence holder.   Mr McGowan did not consider that the grounds of review had been established and that the Board could simply end the matter.  He further considered that if the Board did feel that the grounds had been established that the proportionate response would be to take no action.   He reminded the Board that it is open to them to conduct a review of the 3 personal licences of the individuals involved and it seemed to him that would be a more proportionate outcome.

The Board then asked questions of both Mr McGowan and Police Scotland.

The Board unanimously resolved: -

That the grounds for review had been established.

Having found that the grounds for review had been established;

The Board unanimously resolved:

To take no action.

The Board then heard from Mr Munro that the Board should now consider if any of the three named individuals should be subject to a review.   Mr Munro advised that Ms Allison did not appear to hold a personal licence with Aberdeen City Licensing Board and stated that she may hold one with another authority.  Sgt Flett confirmed that Ms Allison was not a personal licence holder.   In the circumstances the Board were asked to consider if the 2 personal licence holders should be subject to a review.

The Board unanimously resolved:

Not to hold a personal licence review hearing.