Now contains additional information submitted by the Premises Licence Holder.

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing.  The Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties submitted and the oral representations of the parties who attended as well as the relevant legislation.

The Greater Manchester Police (GMP) representative addressed the Hearing Panel and requested that the Hearing Panel agree to the request for the exclusion of the public, for the reason that there is an ongoing serious crime investigation relating to the premises. The GMP representative stated that having the hearing in public may prejudice the ongoing investigation.

The Chair invited views of those present at the hearing.

In response, the Manchester Evening News representative observing the proceedings stated that the incidents are already in the public domain and further information could be redacted to prevent prejudice to the investigation.

The GMP representative added that the latest bundle issued by GMP had been confidential and unavailable for the public to see and that these papers would be referred to at the hearing today, therefore these papers were intrinsically linked to the decision to exclude the public.

The legal advisor to the Hearing Panel confirmed with GMP that the investigations were ongoing.

The Hearing Panel requested all parties and public to leave the meeting room and deliberated in private. All parties and public were readmitted to the meeting room and a proposal to exclude the press and public was agreed on the basis that it would be in the public interest to exclude the public under Regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, as there was a possibility that the representations made, and evidence presented would prejudice the ongoing police investigations.

Following the exclusion of the public, GMP made a further request under Regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, to exclude the partner of the PLH and DPS of The Queen’s Hotel on the grounds that he is a current live suspect in ongoing investigations and any questions he may answer today may constitute an unofficial PACE interview, potentially leading him to incriminate himself with any answers gave.

Mrs Flint’s partner addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that his partner, DPS and PLH of The Queen’s Hotel, is the current licensee and she has not been charged with any criminal activity, therefore, Mrs Flint would not be in the best position to answer any questions regarding incidents linked to the Summary Review hearing. Furthermore, he stated that they had prepared their statement together and agreed that he would present the case for The Queen’s Hotel, adding that Mrs Flint would not be in the best position to take on the process of the hearing. In addition, he confirmed that they had no legal representative and therefore could not rely on anyone else at the hearing.

The Hearing Panel requested that all non-excluded parties to the hearing leave the meeting room and deliberated in private. All non-excluded parties were readmitted to the meeting room and a proposal to exclude Mrs Flint’s partner was refused on the grounds of natural justice, that Mrs Flint’s partner is involved in the incident leading to the Summary Review and to enable him to support his partner, Mrs Flint. Mrs Flint’s partner was verbally warned to be mindful when giving his statement and answers at the hearing so as not to incriminate himself.

The Chair followed the hearing procedure and invited presentations from the parties present and in doing so questions were asked by the panel.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel considered the serious nature of the incident involving serious violence, albeit at a different premises. The panel was in agreement with GMP’s concerns of threats to life and that if the premises was to remain open, there was a strong possibility of reprisals and further violence. The panel were not satisfied that staff, patrons and members of the public/community would be safe from possible reprisals if the premises retained their licence. The Hearing Panel were satisfied that two of the 4 Licensing Objectives, namely “Prevention of Crime and Disorder” and “Public Safety” could not be upheld due to the above issues.

Decision

To revoke the licence

Interim Steps Review

The Hearing Panel invited both parties to present their views on the Interim Steps and measures that they felt should be taken.

The legal advisor to the Hearing Panel informed Mrs Flint and her partner that that they would have a 21 day period to appeal the revocation decision with a Magistrate.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel considered that the suspension put in place at the Interim Steps hearing should remain in place for the reasons given for the Summary Review decision, in that, it would be unwise to have revoked the licence to cease trading due to serious public safety and threats to life concerns and then lift any suspension put in place to cease trading.

Interim Steps Decision

To retain the Interim Steps decision to suspend the licence.