In the opinion of the Proper Officer, the following item will not be, or is likely not to be, open to the public and press at the time it is considered.

RECOMMENDATION:         that under 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 Schedule 12(A) of the Act, as indicated below and it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

1          Information relating to any individual.

2          Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

3          Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person

7          Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

To consider a Full Review of a premises licence following an Expedited Review in respect of: Natalka Polskie,  22 Eign Street, Hereford, HR4 0AB called by Charles Hill, Superintendent of the West Mercia Constabulary and represented by Mr James Mooney, Police Licensing Officer.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee was convened in order to determine an application for a full review of a premises licence following an expedited review. The expedited review had been applied for by West Mercia Police based on the licensing objectives regarding the prevention of crime and disorder.

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers and asked any interested parties to introduce themselves.

Mr Phillips, the Premises Licence Holder’s legal advisor, requested a brief adjournment as he had been served additional papers via email at 8:40 am. The Chairman adjourned the meeting until 9:30 am.

When the meeting was reconvened the Chairman advised all parties of the procedure the Council followed in respect of premises licence reviews. Mr Phillips requested an extension to the usual 10 minutes allocated to all parties for addressing the Sub-Committee. The extension was granted.

In response to a question regarding the submission presented to the Sub-Committee, Mr Phillips confirmed that his representation was not against the interim steps and that the opening paragraph of his submission had been duplicated from an earlier meeting. He confirmed that his submission related to the full review of the premises licence. He added that he would also be requesting that the interim steps applied on 29 September be lifted.

The Licensing Officer presented the report. In reference to Mr Phillips’ comments regarding the interim steps he asked for clarification from Mr Phillips as to where the legislation allowed the interim steps to be lifted. Mr Phillips advised that although it was not specifically provided in the legislation the High Court had ruled in previous cases that the interim steps could be lifted.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Inspector Nick Sempler, representing West Mercia Police who had applied for the review, addressed the sub-committee. He advised the Sub-Committee that the application for an expedited review was based on the sale of contraband goods which amounted to serious financial gain. It was also noted that the amount of cash seized at the premises was considerably less than initially claimed, he apologised for this error but stated that the initial figure was given in good faith based on an email from the officer who was dealing with the police investigation.

All parties were given the opportunity to question Inspector Sempler. A number of questions were asked by Mr Phillips relating to the discrepancy in the cash amount seized at the premises; whether there was any evidence to suggest any of the vodka had been sold; whether there was any evidence to suggest any contraband tobacco had been sold and whether or not Mr Staliglowa had refused to attend the store when telephoned by his employee. Some of these questions were answered by Inspector Sempler and others were answered by Mr Mooney, West Mercia Police’s Licensing Officer.

During the questioning the issue of whether or not Mr Staliglowa had refused to attend the store was raised. To help clarify the situation the Sub-Committee requested that Adam Michniok attend  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

To review a decision of the Officer Panel in respect of a taxi driver.

The Sub-Committee considered the above appeal, which had gone before the Taxi and County Transport Badge Officer Panel on 28 September 2011.

As a preliminary point the appellant expressed concerns in respect of the data that had been supplied to the Council as part of the CRB process. He disputed one of the offences. He was advised to contact the Criminal Records Bureau directly to address the situation.

The Licensing Officer presented the report and outlined the key issues that had given rise to the driver receiving 8 penalty points for 3 separate offences.

Prior to making their decision the Members heard from the appellant who held a Dual (Hackney Carriage and Private Hire) licence. He confirmed that he wished to appeal against the following decisions:

            19 August 2011 –        3 penalty points – Parking on a loading bay

19 August 2011 –        2 penalty points – Failure to maintain a reasonable standard of behaviour

            27 August 2011 –        3 penalty points – Parking on double yellow lines

The appellant gave his account of the events which had resulted in him receiving a total of 5 penalty points on the 19 August 2011. He drew Members’ attention to the two letters which were contained within the agenda pack, he also submitted a further two letters to the Sub-Committee supporting his statement that he was waiting to pick up a pre-booked client on the 19 August.

Inspector Nick Sempler, who was attending the meeting on behalf of West Mercia Police, advised the appellant that it had been bought to the Police’s attention that he had been soliciting fellow taxi drivers to submit letters in support of his appeal. He confirmed that this information had come from a person of good standing in the community who could be treated as a reliable source.

Having carefully considered those matters brought before them, the Sub-Committee were of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed as they did not feel that there was suitable evidence to overturn the decision of the Officer panel. They also had concerns in respect of the validity of the witness statements produced by the appellant.

RESOLVED

THAT the appeal be dismissed and the original decision of the Taxi and County Transport Badge Officer Panel be upheld.