Licensing - infractions of licensing conditions.
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher, Liston, Grime Thomas and Ronge |
|||
Between |
Her Majesty's Attorney General |
Representor |
|
|
And |
Pantherus Limited |
Respondent |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND IN THE MATTER OF PANTHERUS LIMITED
AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE LICENSING (JERSEY) LAW 1974
Advocate M. H. Temple, Solicitor General for the Attorney General
Advocate O. A. Blakeley for the Respondent.
judgment
the bailiff:
1. The company, Pantherus Limited, is before us on a reference by the Attorney General for breaches of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 and also before us is Mr Sousa who is the registered manager of the company's license. The company holds 3rd and 7th category licenses in respect of premises in Cattle Street and it is quite obvious from looking at the plans and from listening to Advocate Blakeley, who acts for the company and for the manager, that there is some doubt about whether the correct licences have been issued given the layout of the premises and the business model that has been adopted.
2. The reference has been brought before us because over the last two years, as the summary reports puts it to us, the management and staff have repeatedly displayed a shocking lack of concern towards the safety of their customers and a contemptuous lack of regard or understanding towards the Licensing Law 1974; the attitude starts, it is said, at the very top of the company with Paulo Luis who as owner and registered manager until November last year, thought it was more important to concentrate on acting as a disc jockey rather than manage the premises professionally. The reporting officer noted that he used the smoke machine in the premises knowing that it regularly activated the fire alarm which directly caused a complacent attitude by staff towards the fire alarm. It was of particular note also that all door staff have not been given any training and have not been appropriately supervised and that the number of patrons on the premises has been adequately monitored and controlled. The conditions on the licences provide for a maximum of 60 on the ground floor and 60 on the first floor and numbers considerably in excess of that have been found on the ground floor, although admittedly that was more than a year ago.
3. The Assembly treats the safety of patrons at premises of this kind extremely seriously and the disregard of customer safety is bound to be taken very much into account when we come to look at what sanction ought to be applied with regard to the breach of the Licensing Law. We also have noted that the absence of training of staff is particularly important and when the officer from the Licensing Unit says that this attitude starts right at the top, in our view that is absolutely clear. Just one example of it is in relation to price lists that, even as late as the last six months, there have not been proper price lists exhibited showing the costs of the items which are for sale and this is absolutely basic to the running of a business.
4. We have been told by Advocate Blakeley, who has said everything that could possibly be said, that a new system has been put in place for monitoring (by clicking) in those coming in and leaving the premises and that is the way in which numbers will be controlled. Well, the Assembly has some very real doubts about whether that clicker system can possibly work. We have no doubt at all that it is only fair, both for this company and to the present management but also fair to the rest of the licensing trade, that a clear message is sent out that the terms of the Licensing Law must be respected particularly, as I say, when safety of consumers, the customers, is put at risk and particularly where there is the absence of proper training.
5. In the circumstances we are going to revoke the licences which have been previously obtained by the company. The Company and its advisers will know of course what has to be done in order to apply for new licences but we cannot give any indication that the licences will be given again. What will be essential is that there is some proper consideration as to what the business model is going to be, whether the premises are suitable for the types of licences which are applied for and whether the management structure and the management staff are appropriate, whether they are fit and proper persons, and can satisfy the relevant authorities at the time. So in those circumstances and for those reasons the licences are revoked. We have given consideration to whether a fine should be imposed; we think the revocation of the licence is an adequate penalty and we do not intend to impose any fine and equally we do not intend to make any order for costs in relation to this reference.
6. I should add in relation to the premises that the advantage of the revocation is that if there is another application for the 7th category licence we particularly expect to see some assessment of the insulating material which is used to prevent noise from emanating from the premises; there will be a proper fire report setting out whether the controls which are proposed to be put in to monitor the number of persons accessing the premises are adequate and there will be an environmental health report on whether the toilet accommodation is sufficient for the number of customers. None of this do we have at the moment and all that does go to show that these premises and the licences need a root and branch review.
Authorities
Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.