Get documents about "CITY OF WESTMINSTER
Document Sample
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE N0.4
TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2002
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
At a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council
House, Marylebone Road NW1 on Tuesday 26 February 2002 at 9.30am
PRESENT: COUNCILLORS Anne Mallinson (Chairman)
Jan Prendergast
Barbara Graham
1. MEMBERSHIP
1.1 There were no changes in membership
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2.1 There were no Declarations of Interest.
3. MINUTES
3.1 RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2001
having been duly circulated, be signed as an accurate record.
4. EMPORIUM, 62 KINGLY STREET, W1
4.1 The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning
and Transportation introduced by Mr. Michael Keegan of the City
Standards and Licensing Division. The report concerned an application
by Mr. Jeffrey Lim to renew the annual public entertainment licence in
respect of The Emporium, 62, Kingly Street, London W1 and to transfer
the licence so as to add Mr. Rihane Redouane as licensee.
4.2 The licence operates from 9am to 4am, Sundays to Thursdays and
from 9am to 6am on Fridays and Saturdays. The premises benefit from
a Justices on licence with Special Hours Certificate. The premises
have a lawful D2 (nightclub) use and there are no planning restrictions
on opening hours. There are no planning enforcement cases open or
under investigation for this address. The premises are located within
the Central Activities Zone and the West End Stress Area, although
they are not located in an area that is almost entirely residential.
4.3 No objections have been received against this application by the Ward
Councillors, the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Fire and
Emergency Planning Authority and the Cleansing Manager. The
District Surveyor has indicated that he would have no objections to the
application. However, in July 1995, the Sub-Committee refused to
1
renew the licence due to numerous incidents of overcrowding and the
premises remained closed for some time.
4.4 A street litter ticket was issued on 13 September 2001 for unpaid waste
but the Cleansing Officer has made no objections to the application.
The Licensing Inspector reported that on 11 August 2000, an
unsatisfactory During Performance Inspection report was issued for
“music emanating into Regent Street through open first floor windows,
although a satisfactory visit was concluded a week later. On 15
September 2001, a door supervisor was found to be working with a
badge that had expired on 3 June 2001. Mr. Lim was warned in writing
and Mr. Xavier Tomico, the manager was formally cautioned. The door
supervisor was invited to accept a caution but he has not responded to
correspondence and, although the papers have been passed to the
Director of Legal Services for possible prosecution, the applicant’s
solicitors have informed the Council that since the incident, the
employee has not returned to work.
4.5 The Environmental Health Officer has objected to the application on
the grounds that the applicants were not fit and proper persons to hold
a licence in that they were not meeting their obligations under the
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The Environmental Health Officer
stated that an inspection carried out in February 1999 revealed
deficiencies in the health and safety procedures and a letter was sent
dated 27 April 1999 indicating the specific areas that needed to be
addressed. A further visit on 2 February 2000 revealed that no work
and been carried out and that the stabbing of a member of staff on 22
January 2000 had not been reported. The stabbing incident had been
particularly serious. A door supervisor, who was seeking to assist a
colleague in restraining a suspect from stabbing a customer,
accidentally bumped into a group of customers who took offence and
threw bottles inflicting a head injury on the employee. The door
supervisor was then led to the toilets by a colleague to dress the
wound. He was then followed into the toilets by the group of customers,
one of whom produced a knife and stabbed the employee twice in the
stomach and once in the groin. A Police investigation followed. Formal
notices were being served for outstanding items including the drawing
up of a policy document to address violence. The premises had a
history of violence, which had never been seriously addressed by the
management and the Environmental Health Officer had no confidence
that this issue would be addressed without formal action being taken.
Mr. Ian Watson of the Environmental Health Consultation Unit and Mr.
Paul Green of the Environmental Health Commercial Team were in
attendance.
4.6 Mr. Jeffrey Lim, the deemed licensee was not present. The applicants
were represented by Mr.John Butcher (Counsel) and Mr. Howard
Timms (Messrs Woodroffes, Solicitors) Also present for the applicant
were Mr. Grahame Dennis, Company Secretary of Thorpestone Ltd,
Mr. Rihane Redouane, transfer applicant and manager, Mr. Xavier
Tomico (manager) and Mr. McLaurence (Head Door Supervisor).
2
4.7 At this stage, Mr. Keegan indicated a bundle of papers that had been
prepared by the applicant and received by the City Standards and
Licensing Division on 19 February 2002, too late to be included in the
agenda papers despatched by the Council. Councillor Barbara Graham
stated that she had not received a copy, while the other two Councillors
on the Sub-Committee had received and read them. An additional copy
was provided for Councillor Graham.
4.8 Mr. Keegan then called Mr. Ian Watson, Environmental Health
Enforcement Officer, who informed the Sub-Committee that he had
visited the Emporium on 10 February 1999 to carry out a full audit of
the health and safety procedures in view of past problems with violence
at the premises. He met with Mr. Dennis and they examined and
discussed the club’s safety policy document, going through the
procedures. Mr. Watson stated that the written policy statement was
deficient in that there were no risk assessments for violence,
overcrowding, means of escape, noise, falls or other accidents. The
findings were subsequently confirmed in a letter dated 27th April 1999.
On 2 February 2000, Mr. Watson made another visit to go through the
letter with Mr. Dennis for compliance. He found that the works he had
requested had been carried out but there had been no improvement in
the documentation.
4.9 Mr. Watson stated that it was only because of this inspection that
officers became aware of the serious stabbing incident, which occurred
on 23 January 2000. There had been Police notices outside the club
asking for witnesses to the incident. On 16 February 2000, the
Environmental Health Officer made a holding objection to the renewal
of the licence while the incident was investigated. The investigation
with a view to legal proceedings being taken was subsequently halted
after the Director of legal services had obtained Counsels opinion.
4.10 Mr. Watson believed that the premises had a history of violence and
rated them high risk. After he had sent his letter of 27 April 1999 to the
Emporium, he had expected the management to contact the Council
and seek their advice so that they could commence the risk
assessment process but he did not hear from them at all. From his
findings he concluded that they gave a low priority to health and safety
issues.
4.11 In response to questions from Mr. Butcher, Mr. Watson stated that a
further visit carried out on 6 December 2001 revealed that a later
version of the health and safety document had been produced but this
was still inadequate. Mr. Watson stated that his letter of 27 April 1999
had been sent to the registered office of the owners company,
Thorpestone Ltd. and addressed to the Company Secretary, Mr.
Dennis with a copy being sent to the Emporium. Mr. Watson explained
that the Council always sent correspondence of this nature to the
registered office. When he visited the premises on 2 February 2000, he
was confident that the letter had been received by the company and he
3
reasonably expected action to have been taken but it had not. The
works had been carried out but the relevant paperwork on the health
and safety requirements had not been produced and there was no new
health and safety document. He discussed his misgivings with Mr.
Dennis who informed him that he had not received the letter and Mr.
Watson handed him a copy.
4.12 Mr. Watson had been aware that the latest version of the company’s
health and safety policy document existed and that it had been
prepared by Hygiene Audit Systems, a firm of consultants. However,
this document also proved to be inadequate, in spite of Mr. Butchers
claim that it had been produced “at considerable expense” by “ a
professional company.” Mr. Watson declined to comment on Mr.
Butchers description stating that this was better addressed by his
colleague, Mr. Green. He was aware that the current document did not
meet statutory requirements. Mr. Watson cited two serious incidents of
violence in the club. One was a shooting in 1996 and the other was the
stabbing on 23 January 2000. Mr. Watson regarded these as serious
incidents and he expected certain measures and procedures to be put
in place to monitor them. Reference was made to the letter from the
Metropolitan Police Service on page 24 of the Agenda at annex D,
which indicated that there had been 7 allegations of assault on the
premises in the last two years. If there was a problem with violence and
incidents were occurring, then these should be documented and
reviewed to minimise confrontation in the future. There was no
indication or record of the number of fights or scuffles.
4.13 Mr. Butcher stated that an incident book was kept on the premises. In
response to further questions from Mr. Butcher, Mr. Watson stated that
he was aware that there was a walk through metal detector on the
premises and while he conceded that this was evidence that the
management recognised the problem of people bringing in weapons,
he refuted Mr. Butcher’s claim that it had been installed on their own
volition. He maintained that the metal detector had been installed on
the advice of the Police after the shooting incident in 1996. In spite of
being prompted by Mr. Butcher, Mr. Watson stated that he was not
aware that the management always employed more security staff than
was required under the conditions on their licence. Mr. Watson stated
that the Police believed that the knives used in the stabbings on 23
January 2000 were brought in by women because there were no
female door staff and therefore it was not possible to search them.
4.14 In response to questions from Councillors, Mr. Watson stated that he
had not been aware that Thorpestone operated from premises other
than the registered office or Kingly Street. Mr. Dennis was the
Company Secretary and Mr. Watson considered that he should be
responsible for implementing the terms of the health and safety policy
document once it had been properly produced. Normally this would be
the responsibility of a Company Director, Secretary, partner or
licensee. Mr. Dennis had overall control and it was, therefore, his
responsibility. When he made the visit on 2 February 2000, Mr. Watson
4
had expected the terms of his letter of 27 April 1999 to have been fully
implemented.
4.15 Door supervisors were directly employed by the company rather than
agency and contract staff used by many similar places. The Council
would rather door staff were directly employed. Mr. Watson confirmed
from his notes that Mr. Lim had been present on the night of the
stabbing as had Mr. Redouane, the transferee. He also confirmed that
Mr. Redouane was the person referred to on page 25 of the agenda at
Annex E as having failed to appear at an identification parade.
4.16 Mr. Watson did not know whether or not an acknowledgement to his
letter of 27 April 1999 had been received at his office but he did not
know that the applicants were claiming that they had not received the
letter until his visit on 2 February 2000. It was noted that the metal
detector had failed to pick up the knives used in the stabbing incident.
Mr. Watson declined to respond when asked whether he was happy
that steps had been taken to ensure that the metal detector could not
be by-passed in future. In his view, there was no guarantee that
concealed weapons could not be prevented from being brought into the
club. He stated that Mr. Green would be better able to answer that
question.
4.17 Mr. Watson confirmed that he had seen an incident book during his
visit in 2 February 2000 and that there had been an entry recording the
stabbing. The account had taken approximately 4 or 5 lines but it did
not indicate the seriousness of the incident. According to the entry Mr.
Lim, Mr. Dennis and the chef, Mr. Redouane were present at the time.
The precise time of the occurrence was unrecorded and the Councils
officers only found out about it when they visited the premises on 2
February 2000 and found Police notices requesting information outside
the property. Mr. Watson regarded all late night establishments to be
high-risk premises and these would receive more inspections as a
result. Mr. Watson considered that the management of the club would
be able to assess the risk of potential violence on any given night from
the DJ, the style of music being played and the nature of the crowd
these two elements are likely to attract.
4.18 Mr. Watson stated that when he made his inspection on 10 February
1999, he interviewed Mr. Dennis and on 2 February 2000 he
interviewed Mr. Dennis again along with Mr. Xavier Tomico, the
manager. He became aware that his 27 April 1999 letter had not been
received during the latter interview, when Mr. Dennis informed him of
that fact, although the building works described in the letter had been
carried out.
4.19 Mr. Butcher, under the pretext of asking further questions, contested
the assertion in the Police statement that the Police had not been
called by the club on the night of the stabbing and that the metal
detector had been inoperative. He also drew attention to the fact that
there was no Police objection to this application.
5
4.20 Mr. Keegan then introduced Mr. Paul Green from the Environmental
Health Commercial Team. He stated that he had accompanied Mr.
Watson on his visit to the premises on 10 February 1999 to carry out a
food hygiene inspection. He had returned on 2 February 2000 to seize
a number of documents. During this second visit, he had the
impression that the proprietors had received Mr. Watson’s letter of 27
April 1999 as they appeared to have updated their health and safety
policy document. The version he saw was dated 25 January 2000.
4.21 Mr. Green considered the policy document produced by Hygiene Audit
Systems to be one of the worst safety policy documents he had ever
seen and he questioned the competence of the consultants who had
produced it. He understood that the main contributor was one Karen
Martin, who had once been employed as a contractor by Westminster
City Council. She had been one of two inspectors but she had never
been allowed to inspect places of entertainment. While Mr. Green
considered Hygiene Audit Systems to be a reputable company, he
doubted their expertise in matters of Health and safety at Work. He
understood that their expertise lay in food hygiene rather than health
and safety matters. What they had produced was a generic policy with
no rules, systems or procedures and very little that could apply
specifically to a night club. To carry out safety policy and risk
assessments would take time and health and safety issues differ from
one establishment to another. Some consultants tend to produce “one
policy covers all” documents and this seems to be the case here. When
he saw the document, Mr. Green had the impression that it was not yet
in force and this feeling was reinforced when Mr. Dennis signed it in his
presence. Mr. Green believed that Mr. Dennis had received Mr.
Watson’s letter of 27 April 1999 as the revised safety policy document
appeared to address some of the issues it had raised.
4.22 Mr. Green then referred to the Council’s investigation of the stabbing
incident on 23 January 2000. He had been dissatisfied with the club’s
conduct throughout. They had failed to notify the Council of the incident
and officers only found out when they visited the premises on 2
February 2000. Reference was made to a letter from the applicants
solicitors on page 35 of the agenda papers at Annex H where they
claimed that their clients had co-operated fully with the Councils
investigation. Mr. green refuted this. He wrote to the solicitors asking
them for permission to carry out interviews with those members of the
staff involved but because the solicitors delayed their response, the
interviews did not commence until December 2000. Mr. Green thought
he had sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution but, after the
Director of legal Services had reviewed the case, reservations were
expressed and it was felt that the entire case hinged on the fact that
the door supervisor had been stabbed. Counsel’s opinion was
subsequently obtained, which made it clear that the Council would
need to obtain direct evidence from the victim or those who treated
him. Mr. Green then wrote to St. Thomas’s Hospital but his letter was
ignored. It transpired that the victim would not give his consent to the
6
information being released. Without a statement from the doctor, all the
Council had was hearsay evidence, which was insufficient, and, as a
result, the Council reluctantly dropped the case.
4.23 Returning to the issue of Mr. Watson’s letter, Mr. Green stated that he
had visited the premises on 2 February 2000 to seize some documents
and when he went to reception to take them, he noticed a copy of the
letter on the desk. This had not been the copy provided by Mr. Watson.
Mr. Green did not feel that the club were taking health and safety
issues seriously enough as they had gone to a consultant who was
lacking in skills and the risk assessments they had prepared had not
been particularly good. The references to the club had been vague with
no detail. There had been no reference to CCTV and the metal
detector. There had been no system for cash handling. In short, the
entire document was deficient in essential information. It was an off the
peg document which did not address security or violence. It was not
easy to get off the peg risk assessments as all premises were different.
At 12.05 hours, the Sub-Committee withdrew for a short break and re-convened at
12.22 hours.
4.24 In confirming that there had been only three visits by Environmental
Health Officers since 1999, Mr. Green explained that having started an
investigation, it was departmental policy to take a “hands off” approach
towards the premises until it had been concluded. Unfortunately the
investigation did not go well. The door supervisor did not wish to co-
operate with the Council, even though he had been in hospital for two
weeks or so because of the injuries he had sustained. The Police were
not helpful either, probably because they felt that the Council was
“treading on their toes.” The prosecution proved to be a slow process,
exacerbated by the fact that not all of the agencies involved were co-
operative.
4.25 As far as the Emporium was concerned, there was still no
documentation to indicate whether or not risk assessments were being
conducted, although Mr. Green did understand that the management
had contacted a specialist agency with a view to undertaking training.
Generally, Mr. Green stated, there was an increasing trend towards
violence in night clubs and the Council sought to encourage the
proprietors of these premises to carry out risk assessments and to train
their staff in how to deal with violence. Enforcement action might be
taken against those, which declined to participate. Metal detectors
might be necessary. However, queues can develop and this can be a
problem in itself, which might tempt the club proprietors to turn off the
metal detector.
4.26 At this stage the incident book was produced and handed up. The style
of entry was based on the managers report sheet, which had been
adapted for the incident book. Management have had the opportunity
to revise the way in which entries were submitted since 1999. Mr.
Green stated that the staff had said they had received training but it
7
was not clear what they had received training in as they did not seem
to have been trained to make useful entries. The incident book was
more in the nature of a daily diary and Mr. Green advised the
establishment that he would like to see them move to a more
structured and formalised report form. He noted that before the
stabbing, there had been no entries at all. He found this difficult to
comprehend in view of the nature of the premises. He wondered what
they regarded as an incident. He considered that the incident book
should be signed by the duty manager at the end of each night.
4.27 In response to cross examination by Mr. Butcher, Mr. Green confirmed
that the basis of his department’s objection to the application was the
failure on the part of the applicant to comply with health and safety
requirements and that they had produced what Mr. Butcher described
as “a worthless document.” Mr. Butcher then referred to Mr. Green’s
visit to the premises on 3 February 2000 when he saw a copy of Mr.
Watson’s letter of 27 April 1999 on the reception desk. He asked Mr.
Green whether this could have been the copy left by Mr. Watson. Mr.
Green did not know how the letter came to be on the desk. However,
he noted that some of the points in the revised health and safety
document matched those raised by Mr. Watson’s letter and he believed
that the original letter had been received. Mr Green confirmed Mr.
Butchers assessment that the same effect could have been achieved if
notes had been taken by Mr. Dennis at the time of his meeting with Mr.
Watson. However, Mr. Green did not believe any notes had been
taken.
4.28 Mr. Butcher then asserted that the club did take steps to put in an
effective health and safety policy by going to Hygiene Audit Systems
and that this proved they were taking their health and safety
responsibilities seriously. Mr. Green disagreed. He stated that the
applicant could go to a consultant thinking that this alone was a
solution to their problem but health and safety issues were very
complex and sophisticated necessitating training for those who need to
carry out the policies. Mr. Butcher conceded that the applicants had
been sold a package by the consultant who had “got it off a word
processor” but he asked how else they could have proceeded.
4.29 Mr. Green stated that they could have attended training courses and
developed their own policy with the assistance of the Council. The
Council was willing to offer advice but the applicants appeared
reluctant to ask. The consultants concerned were competent within the
field of food hygiene but were not qualified to deal with health and
safety.
8
4.30 Mr. Butcher referred to paragraph 5 of the letter from the applicants
solicitor, which appeared on page 33 of the agenda papers at Annex G
and stated :-
-“ A health and safety consultancy has been appointed by the club’s
management at considerable expense, in order to look at ways of
improving the club’s health and safety policies.”
4.31 Mr. Green stated that he had probably been aware of the identity of the
consultants but it would have been hard for a Council officer to say “do
not use them” just as the Council could not recommend a consultant if
approached. He believed that many of the consultants in this field were
“quite poor.” It was Council policy not to recommend a consultant. His
only experience of Hygiene Audit Systems had been in the field of food
hygiene.
4.32 At Mr. Butcher’s invitation, Mr. Green stated the significant dates and
events, which led to the Department’s objection to the application. On 6
December, 2001, Mr. Green visited the Emporium and met with Mr.
Dennis. He was shown a health and safety policy document dated
September 2001. It was the first time he had seen that particular
document. His letter dated 31 January 2002 had been sent as a result
of that meeting and had been critical of the policy document, which had
been produced by Hygiene Audit Systems. The visit by Mr. Watson had
taken place on 10 February 1999 and this had highlighted the first
inadequate health and safety policy document. The stabbing incident at
the club had occurred on 23 January 2000 and his visit to the premises
to seize documents took place on 3 February 2000.
4.33 Mr. Green declined to concur with Mr. Butcher’s assertion that, had the
consultants “been any good” the health and safety policy would now be
in place and this hearing would not be taking place. In response, Mr.
Green drew attention to Mr. Watson’s memorandum dated 6 February
2002 on pages 37 and 38 in the agenda papers at Annex I. There were
other issues set out on page 38. These were, inter alia, the inadequacy
of the CCTV system, the absence of female door staff and the
provision of hand held metal detection wands to security staff. Mr.
Butcher stated that the management was already in active discussions
with a CCTV consultant to overcome the Council’s concern and female
security staff were now being employed. The Emporium had also taken
issue with the health and safety consultants with a view to revising the
health and safety policy document so that it is acceptable to the
Council. Mr. Butcher contended, therefore, that the only outstanding
issues were the renewal and transfer of the licence.
4.34 Mr. Butcher then asked to recall Mr. Watson and asked him whether,
when he discussed the original in-house health and safety document
with Mr. Dennis on 10 February 1999, Mr. Dennis took notes. Mr.
Watson was unable to say.
9
4.35 In response to questions from Mr. Keegan, Mr. Watson reiterated the
following areas of concern:-
1. The stabbing incident on 23 January 2000
2. The inadequacy of 2 health and safety policy documents
3. The noise assessment was still outstanding
4. Incidents were under-recorded in the incident book
5. Having engaged Hygiene Audit Systems, the applicants “just sat
back and let them get on with it. Health and safety needs full
commitment rather than a useless document and a useless policy.
6. CCTV had still not been installed to an adequate standard.
4.36 When Mr. Keegan addressed other outstanding issues, Mr. Watson
stated that he did not know whether the litter ticket had been paid.
Attempts had been made to trace the door supervisor, who had been
wearing an out of date badge but he had not yet re-registered and it
was unlikely that a prosecution could be brought until he did. The
incident of noise breakout would be followed up.
At 13.36 hours, the Sub-Committee withdrew for lunch and re-convened at 14.34
hours
4.37 Before continuing with proceedings, the Council’s Legal Adviser raised
a number of queries regarding the late bundle of papers submitted by
the applicant.
4.38. Mr. Butcher then commenced his presentation on behalf of the
applicant by calling Mr. Rehane Redouane. Mr. Redouane was
experienced in hotel management and the restaurant industry before
he became associated with the Emporium on a part time basis in 1996
while he was studying. He had been employed full time at the
Emporium since 1998 and currently held the post of duty manager. He
was one of two holders of the liquor licence. He also held the national
Entertainment Licensees Certificate.
4.39 Mr. Redouane confirmed that he had been on duty as restaurant
manager on the night of the stabbing. At that time he dealt with the
restaurant and nothing else. He had been surprised that the Police
statement had concluded that management had been reluctant to
assist the Police investigation into the incident and he denied the
allegation that he had failed to attend an identification parade in Kilburn
without explanation. He had willingly assisted the Police enquiries and
had attended court to give evidence. He had not attended the
identification parade because he had received no notification that it
was taking place.
4.40 Mr. Butcher then referred to the witness statement by Detective
Constable Ian Williamson, which appeared in the Councils agenda
papers at Annex E. DC Williamson stated that there was no CCTV
system operating at the venue on the night of the stabbing. Mr.
Redouane denied this. There were three cameras and the Police took
10
the film to assist them with their investigations. One of the cameras
was located at the main entrance, one at the search area and one at
reception. There were none operating on the floor of the club. Mr.
Redouane suggested that any questions about updating the present
CCTV system should be addressed to Mr. Dennis, who was currently
seeking to implement this.
4.41 Mr. Redouane confirmed that the walk-through metal detector was
operating for the whole of that evening, even though DC Williamson
had stated that it had been turned off for at least part of the evening
because it had slowed down the rate at which customers could be
admitted to the club. However, the view of the Police had now
changed and they now believed that the knives in question had been
brought into the club by female customers. The absence of female
security staff meant that male staff could only search womens
handbags so that female customers could secrete weapons about their
person and escape detection. Mr. Redouane confirmed that female
door supervisors were now being employed to avoid such a situation
occurring in the future. Mr. Redouane stated the walk through metal
detector was adjustable and constantly operated at the highest level of
sensitivity. He denied that it was ever turned off when a queue was
forming. Whenever a queue formed in front of the metal detector, door
staff stopped any more people from coming in until the congestion had
cleared.
4.42 Mr. Butcher referred to a passage in the Police witness statement
concerning the male suspect involved in the earlier incident. It stated
that he had been allowed in even though he had apparently caused
trouble at the venue in the past “as long as he behaved.” The person
had been in possession of a knife, which he subsequently used. Mr.
Redouane stated that the club’s banning policy was very strict and
nobody who had been barred would ever be allowed back into the
establishment. The clientele was reasonably select and the prices
charged for admission and drinks reflected this. The admission price
was £20 for a man and £15 for a woman. Beer prices started at £5 for
a bottle.
4.43 Mr. Redouane refuted the allegation that health and safety issues were
not at the forefront of the minds of the club’s management. While it had
not been well documented, the management had a good knowledge of
health and safety issues and the manner of their implementation. The
licence required the club to employ 3 security staff during the week and
5 at weekends. The club employed more than this with up to 6 during
the week and 8 at weekends.
4.44 While the club was operating, security staff communicated by hand-
held radio and a coding policy was in use. There was a structured
response to perceived incidents though very few occurred or were
recorded in the incident book. Regular staff meetings were held on
Fridays although no written record was made of these. The Emporium
also had step by step manuals for waitresses, bar and security staff.
11
4.45 Mr. Butcher referred to the letter from Mr. Green dated 31 January
2002 on page 39 of the Councils agenda papers at Annex F. In this
letter Mr. Green was critical of the Emporium’s health and safety policy
particularly risk assessments and fire risk. Mr. Redouane stated that
fire safety procedures were in place. There were nightly checks from a
pre-check list before opening when all exits and equipment were
checked. Approved fire alarms were in place and operating. Every
alarm is regularly checked and logged as are fire drills. If a fire were to
break out, every member of staff knew what they had to do. The music
would stop immediately and all lights would be switched on, prior to the
ordered evacuation of the building.
4.46 Procedures for the movement of cash were carefully observed. Mr.
Redouane explained that, every 10 -15 minutes, the manager collects
cash, checks on security and locks the money away. The toilets have
attendants, one for male, one for female. No more than one person is
allowed into any cubicle at one time. Mr. Redouane confirmed that
there was a drugs policy in place, although his clientele were less likely
to indulge than those of other establishments. The Police had promised
to provide a safe for the storing of confiscated substances. Anything
found by the staff on the premises was logged and placed in a plastic
bag. The noise breakout mentioned in the report of the Licensing
Inspector was, according to Mr. Redouane, a one – off. All windows
were now kept locked while the club was open. The Council’s
contractor now collects the club’s refuse. They did have their own
contractor but were unhappy with their performance. That particular
contractor was responsible for the club being given a £25 ticket. The
Emporium are currently in dispute with the contractor over the
termination of the contract..
4.47 Mr. Butcher then referred to the visit by Mr. Watson on 10 February
1999. Mr. Redouane stated that he had been present at the
discussions between Mr. Dennis and Mr. Watson over the in-house
health and safety policy document. The discussions lasted
approximately 45 minutes. Mr. Redouane stated that he did not receive
the letter sent by Mr. Watson on 27 April 1999 as it had been sent to
the wrong address. He did not see the letter until Mr. Watson produced
a duplicate a year later. Mr. Redouane claimed that all the necessary
steps that needed to be taken were taken after the duplicate letter had
been received.
4.48 When the first policy document was rejected by the Council, the club’s
proprietors appointed what they considered to be a specialist
consultant, who spent approximately two weeks on the premises taking
notes. Mr. Redouane did not know how Hygiene Audit Systems came
to be appointed and suggested that this question be asked of Mr.
Dennis. The document was received in December 2000. After he had
looked at it, he ensured that every member of staff had a copy and had
it explained to them. He did not notice the deficiencies in the document
and implemented the policies as they were written. Mr. Redouane
12
stated that he had been present when Mr. Green met Dennis. Mr.
Green noticed that the document had not been signed and Mr. Dennis
signed it in front of him. Mr. Redouane thought that it was unfair for Mr.
Green to conclude that the club’s management were content to sit back
and let the consultants do the work.
4.49 Mr. Redouane stated that Mr. Green had been given a copy of the
document produced by the consultants on 6 December. The letter from
Mr. Green to the Emporium setting out detailed criticism of the
document was dated 31 January 2002. Mr. Redouane stated that his
reaction to the letter was that he was upset with the consultants and
the wasted time and money spent on the document. He wanted to
know why the document failed to satisfy the Council. He now intended
to enrol for health and safety training courses so that in future he would
know what was supposed to be done and how.
4.50 In response to questions from Mr. Keegan, Mr. Redouane confirmed
that the CCTV system was operating on the night of the stabbing but
he was unable to recollect when it was first installed. He stated that Mr.
Lim was in charge that night and that Mr. Tomico was his deputy. Mr.
Lim had subsequently left and Mr. Tomico was now in charge of the
club. He was unable to explain why Mr. Lim’s name remained on the
liquor licence. He had applied for a transfer because Mr. Tomico was
approaching retirement and did not wish to spend his nights at the club.
On the night of the stabbing, Mr. Redouane assumed that the knives
that were used had been brought in by women, who had taken
advantage of the fact that no female security staff had been employed.
Up until then, male security staff only checked women’s handbags.
Now female security staff have been employed although he refuted Mr.
Keegan’s inference that it was too late in the day. Mr. Redouane had
always considered the Emporium to be a very safe establishment. He
was responsible for amending health and safety policy and he was
willing to attend a course.
4.51 In response to questions from Councillors, Mr. Redouane stated that
female door staff had been appointed since January this year.
However, when his attention was drawn to the letter from Woodroffes
dated 26 July 2000, which appeared on page 33 of the agenda papers
at Annex G and stated that “The club now employs a female registered
security officer,” he stated that female security staff had been
employed ever since the stabbing incident. Mr. Redouane had
experience of health and safety procedures when he was employed at
Moreton’s Club and the Sheraton Hotel. He had experience in dealing
with the siting of CCTV cameras. In the Emporium, he felt that more
security and more lighting were required.
4.52 On the night of the incident, two Police officers arrived and told him to
clean up the toilet. He denied the allegation that he had given staff
instructions to clean the area before the Police had arrived on the
scene. This was at variance with the statement provided by DC
Williamson who said that the floor was being cleaned when the Police
13
arrived. Mr. Redouane stated that he first joined the staff at the
Emporium after meeting Mr. Lim at Langan’s Brasserie. He had
decided to take over as licensee because Mr. Tomico was retiring and
no longer wished to work every night. He did not know why Mr. Lim left.
He did not consider Mr. Lim to be a friend and had nothing to do with
him outside of work. Mr. Redouane reiterated his previous statement
that he did not attend the Police identification parade because he
received no prior notification that it was taking place. He would have
attended had he known, although he did not feel he would have been
able to assist. He had been in the kitchen at the time of the incident.
4.53 One Councillor queried why the metal detector had been placed on a
mezzanine floor. Mr. Redouane responded that this was the most
suitable location as it allows those leaving the premises the space to
pass. If it was close to the front entrance, it would cause an
obstruction. He added that there was rarely a queue between the front
entrance and the metal detector. If there was a queue, it was kept
outside the front door and regulated by the security staff. Mr.
Redouane stated that he had not seen Mr. Watson’s letter dated 27
April 1999. Mr.Dennis would have received it in the first instance and if
any work needed to be done then it would have been passed either Mr.
Tomico or himself. Mr. Redouane confirmed that Hygiene Audit
Systems had been asked to establish staff training records. One
member of staff had been tasked with staff training on health and
safety but no advice had been sought from the Council. Councillors
were concerned that no detailed examples had been brought to the
hearing. In response to further questions Mr. Redouane maintained
that the CCTV was fully operational on the night of the stabbing as was
the metal detector.
4.54 Mr. Redouane accepted that the Environmental Health Division had
been unhappy with the health and safety policy documents so far
produced by the Emporium and was willing to revamp them. He wanted
to examine the Councils recommendations, go through them and then
discuss them with Council officers. When asked why the club’s version
of events on the night of the stabbing were at variance with the Police
statement provided by DC Williamson he was unable to respond. Mr.
Redouane had been in the restaurant at the time. Mr. Lim and Mr.
Tomico had been in effective charge of the premises. He had been
interviewed more than 10 times by the Police since the incident
occurred. The control and sensitivity levels of the metal detector were
set up by the club’s maintenance man. If it needed to be varied, the
maintenance man did it. Care of the metal detector is one of the items
on the list to be checked immediately prior to the club’s opening. It was
unusual to eject anyone from the club. It was more likely that any
potential troublemakers would be refused admission. It is not possible
to record refusals of admission in the incident book and it was not
unusual to refuse up to 200 people admission on a busy night.
At 16.19 hours, the Sub-Committee withdrew and re-convened at 16,34 hours.
14
4.55 Mr. Butcher called Mr. Graham Dennis, Company Secretary of
Thorpstone, a position he had held for approximately 5 years. He had
been involved with night - clubs for the last 17 years. He described his
responsibilities for the Emporium as opening correspondence,
delegating duties, dealing directly with the Emporium’s landlords and
passing items for possible litigation to the appropriate lawyers. He
stated that, while the registered offices are at 1 Bentick street and the
club is situated at 62 Kingly Street, the company is actually
administered from another address, 162-168, Regent Street. He stated
that his postman was aware of this and ensured that mail for
Thorpstone went to the right address. However, he did not receive Mr.
Watson’s letter dated 27 April 1999. On 10 February 1999, he met
Messrs Watson and Green and they made derisory comments about
the health and safety policy document calling it inadequate. They
offered advice and HMSO pamphlets. He was unaware of the heads of
risk assessment but he took notes of the conversation and, realising
the severity of the situation, passed these on to the Emporium
management. The health and safety document was then amended.
4.56 After the stabbing, Mr. Dennis received a further visit from officers on 3
February 2000 and the document was amended further. During the
discussion, mention was made of Mr. Watson’s letter of 27 April 1999.
The officers were told that this letter had not been received and Mr.
Watson produced a copy. Mr. Dennis decided that it would not be
possible for a suitable health and safety document to be produced in
house and he approached a professional company who could provide
what was needed. He first consulted a restaurant owner he knew, who
recommended Hygiene Audit Systems so he instructed them. Karen
Martin was the contact as she had carried out work for the restaurant.
Mr. Dennis was also given to understand that Ms. Martin had worked
for the Council and he thought that employing her would be an
advantage for this reason. The document produced by Hygiene Audit
Systems eventually cost £2,500 plus VAT, which was very expensive
for what it was.
4.57 Mr. Dennis stated that there was nothing to suggest that the document
produced by Hygiene Audit Systems was flawed or in any way
inadequate. It was only after he had given it to Mr. Green on 6
December 2001 and received the Council’s letter dated 31 January
2002 that he realised that the Council was still dissatisfied. He
subsequently wrote to Hygiene Audit Systems asking for their
comments and another contact within the consultancy had been
instructed to correspond with the Council and act on the outcome. Mr.
Dennis has now realised that Hygiene Audit Systems was not the best
firm to approach for Health and Safety matters and in order to comply
with the legal requirements in future, he had to understand them fully.
To this end, he had enrolled on various monthly courses over the next
6 months to gain the necessary knowledge and pass it on to the staff.
He also instructed Hygiene Audit Systems to amend and update their
document in consultation with the Council so that the company’s outlay
was not entirely wasted.
15
4.58 Mr. Dennis also stated that he was currently seeking to upgrade the
CCTV system in the club. He did not want to install a system that was
likely to become obsolete. What he wanted was a more extensive and
fully integrated system to incorporate the tills, cloakrooms and the
various attendants. He estimated that this would take him
approximately 3 months to achieve. He also estimated that, with the
co-operation of the Council and Hygiene Audit Systems, a revised and
acceptable health and safety policy document would be produced
within 4 weeks.
4.59 At the time of the stabbing, Mr. Dennis had not been aware of RIDDOR
(Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
Regulation 1995) requirements but he was now. Following a recent
fight at the premises between two customers at 5am, he left a message
on Mr. Green’s voicemail and followed it up with an E.Mail. Mr. Green
subsequently responded. The altercation was entered in the incident
book. Mr. Dennis confirmed that he had also been in contact with West
End Central Police Station concerning health and safety issues and
that he had met with the Crime Prevention Officer, who had
recommended certain contacts to enable the club’s CCTV system to be
upgraded.
4.60 Mr. Dennis stated that he had made no contact with the Council for
assistance in spite of having received Mr. Watson’s letter of 27 April
1999. He had approached Karen Martin as the result of a
recommendation. He did not know at the time that her only experience
with the City of Westminster had been in the field of restaurants and
food hygiene and felt that, if she had had any reservations about her
capabilities regarding health and safety issues, then she should have
said so. He had recently instructed another member of Hygiene Audit
Systems, Mr. Graham Murphy to rectify the situation.
4.61 Mr. Dennis’ attention was drawn to the statement by DC Williamson on
page 24 of the agenda papers at Annex E. Mr. Dennis was unable to
confirm whether or not the CCTV system was working on the night of
the stabbing. However, he noted that this matter had been mentioned
by the club’s solicitor in the letter dated 26 July 2000 stating that steps
were being taken to update the CCTV (Agenda page 33 Annex 9
paragraph 7 refers) but nothing had been done since then. The letter
did contradict certain statements that had been made in the Police
statement. For instance, the metal detector had been working on the
night in question and the Police had been called by the club on that
night. Mr. Dennis was not prepared to comment on why the Police had
alleged that “the management were less than helpful.”
4.62 In response to questions from Councillors, Mr. Dennis stated that he
had not received Mr. Watson’s letter of 27 April 1999 until he was
handed a copy on 3 February 2000 but he acknowledged that this was
still two years ago. He had passed everything to Hygiene Audit
Services in the belief that they would resolve all of the outstanding
16
issues. When these same issues were raised in Mr. Green’s letter of 31
January 2002, Mr. Dennis confirmed that, once again, he passed the
letter to Hygiene Audit services without having read it. He saw his role
in such matters as passing on correspondence to those whose
responsibility it was to deal with it. However, he did state that he is now
enrolling on courses so that he can familiarise himself with health and
safety procedures.
4.63 Mr. Dennis informed the Sub-Committee that since the visit by the
Councils officers, he had taken on further clients, who’s
correspondence he now handles. The club was fully operational on
Friday and Saturday nights. However, if they could guarantee filling the
premises on any other night from Monday to Thursday by bringing in
an independent promoter then they would do this. Mr. Dennis
acknowledged that the proprietors were still responsible for what went
on in the premises, regardless of the presence of a promoter. Mr.
Dennis stated that he received a salary from Thorpstone but that he
charged a consultancy fee to the 4 other companies he was now
assisting.
4.64 Mr. Dennis confirmed that Council officers first saw the document
produced by Hygiene Audit Systems on 6 December 2001. When he
received Mr. Green’s letter date 31 January 2002, he passed it to
Hygiene Audit Systems asking for their comments. He felt that they
might take issue with the Council. He then sought legal advice and
passed a copy of the letter to the company solicitor, Messrs.
Woodroffes.
4.65 In response to further questions from Councillors, Mr. Dennis stated
that Thorpstone was a limited company, which owned the Emporium
and a warehouse in the East End of London. Mr. Lim was still the sole
Director, although he was shortly to be “retired.” While another Director
was being sought to replace Mr. Lim, Mr. Dennis would resign as
company secretary and assume the role of Director. Finally, Mr. Dennis
confirmed that Mr. Redouane would be attending the same health and
safety courses as himself.
4.66 Mr. Keegan did not exercise his right to make a closing statement,
while Mr. Butcher made a brief summary of the case for the applicant.
At 17.44 hours, the Sub-Committee withdrew and reconvened at 21.46 hours to
announce the decision.
RESOLVED:
This is an application by the licensee, Mr Lim, of Emporium at 62 Kingley Street,
London, W1 for renewals and Mr Redouane for the transfer of an annual weekday
and Sunday music and dance licence. The hours of the licence are from 9am to
4am Sunday to Thursday and 9am to 6am Friday to Saturday. The capacity of the
premises is 500. There is no application to vary the hours or the capacity.
17
Mr Lim as well as Messrs Tomico and Redouane, the applicant for the transfer,
benefit from a Justices' On Licence with a special hours certificate.
The premises have planning permission as a night club (Class D2) and the planning
officer has advised that there are no planning restrictions on opening hours.
The premises were previously licensed for public entertainment until 4am. However,
after several incidents of over-crowding the Sub-Committee refused to renew the
licence in July 1995 and the premises closed for a period of time.
On 26th November 1996 the Sub-Committee granted to Mr Lim a new week-day and
Sunday public music and dancing licence with a terminal hour of 3am on each day of
the week and a capacity of 500. In 1997 the terminal hour of the premises was
increased to 4am on Sunday to Thursday and 6am Friday to Saturday.
The current applications for renewal and transfer have come before this Licensing
Sub-Committee as the Council's Environmental Health Office has raised serious
health and safety issues at the premises following the near fatal stabbing incident
that took place at the premises on 23 January 2000. As a result of the delay due to
investigations to see if a prosecution in connection with this incident could be
pursued, the Licensing Sub-Committee today are considering three applications for
renewal as well as the application for transfer. The second and third applications for
renewal were advertised and no objections were received.
The premises are located within the Central Activities Zone, which is generally the
preferred location for entertainment premises. However, although the premises are
also located within the West End Stress Area, there is no policy presumption against
grant as the applications are only for renewal and transfer.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered the evidence produced before it. This
included a tabbed (but unpaginated) bundle of documents submitted by the Applicant
as well as the submissions made by Mr Keegan for the Licensing Business Unit, Mr
John Butcher for the Applicant, Mr Ian Watson and Mr Paul Green of the
Environmental Health Office and Mr Rihane Redouane, the applicant for the transfer,
as well as Mr Graham Dennis, the Company Secretary of Thorpestone Ltd, the
owner of the premises.
The Sub-Committee noted the police evidence in the report including the letter dated
12th June 2000 from the Metropolitan Police which forms Annexe C to the report, in
which it was alleged that the ambulance that arrived at the scene was not called by
the club following the stabbing incident. The Sub-Committee also noted that it was
reported by the police that there was no CCTV at the premises and that for at least
part of the evening the metal detector was not in operation, and that there were also
no female door supervisors to search females who might be concealing weapons.
The Sub-Committee noted that the police were dissatisfied with the level of co-
operation of the management at the premises. The Sub-Committee also noted the
witness statement of DC Ian Williamson who attended the premises following the
stabbing incident. DC Williamson has expressed alarm that at least two knives were
used at the Emporium on the night in question and that the manager at the premises
18
on the night, Mr Redouanne, failed to appear at an identity parade at Kilburn
following the incident. The police, however, did not appear to give evidence at the
hearing.
The Sub-Committee noted the oral evidence of Mr Redouane at the hearing that,
while he was at the premises on the night of the incident in his capacity as restaurant
manager he did not issue instructions to clean the scene of the crime before the
police arrived. Mr Redouane’s oral evidence under cross examination was that Mr
Xavier Tomieko and Mr Jeffrey Lim were in effective control of the premises that
night. He denied that he had received a request from the police to attend the identity
parade at Kilburn and gave evidence that he had co-operated with the police during
the week following the incident by identifying patrons who were in the queue on the
night in question. Mr Redouane also gave evidence that he had recently undertaken
the National Entertainment Licensee’s Certificate.
The Sub-Committee also considered in evidence the Incident Report Book diary
dated 2000, which included a hand-written entry for the night of the incident in
question (23 January 2000).
The Sub-Committee noted the concerns of the Environmental Health Office including
their criticism of the current Health and Safety Policy contained at tab 5 of the bundle
produced by the applicant and drafted by Karen Martin, an agency employee who
had been contracted temporarily to the Council. They also noted the concerns of the
Environmental Health Officers that Health and Safety Risk Assessments had not
been done to the satisfaction of the Council. No adequate CCTV had been installed
and a walk-through metal detector, which had been installed since the shooting
incident, had failed to detect at least two knives had been taken into the premises on
the night of the stabbing.
The Sub-Committee had serious concerns regarding the operation and management
of the premises (see Entertainment and Night Café Licensing Policy Guidelines, 5B).
There was an apparent lack of communication between Mr Dennis and the duty
managers of the premises, including Mr Redouane, and a general lack of training of
a level commensurate with the nature of the premises (a nightclub) and its high level
of capacity (500). The Sub-Committee were of the view that management were not
aware that the line of responsibility ended with the licensee.
The Sub-Committee were of the view that there was not a whole-hearted
commitment from the Company Director and the Company Secretary to the effective
management of the premises.
In particular they noted paragraph 5.8 "That all licence standard conditions should be
fully observed" and that "failure to observe licence conditions will be regarded
extremely seriously and could lead to prosecution and/or loss of the licence". In this
regard they had particular reference to paragraph 8(e) of the Rules of Management
for Places of Public Entertainment, that "The duty manager shall maintain good order
in the premises and in particular shall ensure that none of the following shall take
place:
(d) Acts of violence against persons or property and/or the attempt or threat of such
acts".
19
The Committee felt strongly that the management giving evidence did not appreciate
the gravity of the near fatal stabbing incident and although the Sub-Committee was
satisfied with the general attitude of Mr Redouane, they did feel that he required
further health and safety training and on-going management support commensurate
with the capacity and nature of the premises. Accordingly, they were not happy to
renew the annual public entertainment licence of the premises for longer than 2
months, until the following conditions as listed below were fully complied with.
Accordingly,
THE DECISION IS:
That the applications for renewal and transfer of the weekday and Sunday public
music and dancing licence in respect of the premises known as Emporium, 62 Kingly
Street, London W1 be granted until 26 April 2002 subject to the Rules of
Management, the existing special conditions and to the following additional special
conditions:
(i) Managers and licensees shall attend a recognised course on health and
safety at work commensurate with the size and licensing history of the
premises.
(ii) A female door supervisor shall be employed whenever this licence is in use as
part of the premises security arrangements to enable all clients to be
searched.
(iii) A comprehensive CCTV system shall be installed, monitored and maintained
at a level to the satisfaction of the Council.
(iv) All security staff employed in the searching of patrons shall be provided with
hand held metal detecting wands. These wands shall be used whenever the
public are admitted onto the premises.
(v) All openable windows shall not be fixed open after 11pm.
(vi) On Friday and Saturday there will be a minimum of five door supervisors on
duty. On Monday to Thursday there will be a minimum of three door
supervisors on duty, except if it is anticipated there will be more than 300
persons present in the premises between Monday and Thursday, at which
point in time there should be a minimum of 5 door supervisors on duty.
(vii) A record shall be maintained at reception of the number of persons who have
entered and left the premises. This shall be made available for inspection by
the appropriate authorities.
(viii) A liquor licensee shall be present on the premises at all times that the
premises are open to the public.
(ix) The rear exit into Regent Street shall only be used as an emergency exit.
(x) No person under the age of 18 shall be admitted to the premises.
20
(xi) There shall be a cloakroom attendant in the male and female toilets at all
times that the premises are open to the public.
(xii) The issues and recommendations raised in the letters dated 27 April 1999
(from Mr Ian Watson to Mr Graham Dennis) and 31 January 2002 (from Mr
Paul Green to the Company Secretary, Mr Graham Dennis) shall be complied
with and implemented by 26 April 2002 to the satisfaction of City Standards
and Licensing, failure of which shall result in the reversion of the matter to the
Licensing Sub-Committee at the earliest possible opportunity.
5. TERMINATION OF MEETING
5.1 The meeting ended at 21.49 hours.
Signed…………………………………………………date…………………………
21
