Transcript

chair please. Councillor Banks. Thank you. Chair. Chair. Chair. Chair. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning everybody. Finally. Sorry about the delay. Just before I ask the relations manager to go through procedures this morning just like to remind everybody, anybody got phones, iPhones, can you make sure they're on silent please? And I'm assuming mine are on silent because they're over there. Okay. What I think I'll do first, I think we all know each other by now, we've been here before, but I think we'll go introductions from my left hand side and we'll go round the table so everybody knows each other. Okay, thank you. Lorraine Simpson, licensing manager. I'm going to keep licensing officer. Nicholas Ireland, Merseyside Police licensing officer. That's alright though, it's fine, cheers. Josh Griffiths, neighbourhood inspector with responsibility for delivering the operational NTE in St. Helens. Good morning everyone, I'm Christopher Kenny, the principal operations officer in the licensing section on behalf of the licensing authority. Good morning, Michael Barmers, solicitor for the premises license holder, Mr. Edwards. Peter Edwards, owner of Maloney's. Morning everybody, Councillor Lynn Clark. Morning everybody, Linda Maloney, Councillor for Blackrook. Susan Frain from Democratic Services, Clark in the meeting. Ashley Mealy, a senior solicitor to the council. Okay, Councillor David Banks, chair for this morning, I represent Newton West Ward. Okay, with that we'll get on with the agenda. Item two was minutes of the meeting held on the 27th of March 2024, there before you, can I check those as read? Okay, great, thank you. Item three, declarations of interest from members, are there any? No? Okay, straight on to item four then, review of premises license, Maloney's PL

1. Okay. I just run through the procedure before we start, chair. Just before I do that, we have a 20 minute presentation window for each party, so if you think 20 minutes is not going to be enough, if you can tell us now, so that we can get the chair to agree if you need a bit longer or whatever. Anyone need longer than 20 minutes? Sorry, apologies, I was going to wait for the police. There are, or there have been brought to our attention a number of incidents that weren't referred to in the previous hearing that I think it's only fair we have the opportunity to address in turn, so perhaps if I could ask for 30 minutes. Can I ask you do you agree with that 30 minutes for applicant? Do you agree with that Maloney? Yes. Okay, alright that's agreed, thank you. Yourself Chris? Can I just ask regarding the viewing of the CCTV, is that inclusive in that time? How long is the CCTV that everyone's going to share? I have 18 minutes. You have 18 minutes. Collectively mine's about five, six, maybe ten, eight minutes. If you said not included in the CCTV. I think it can't include it, there wouldn't be enough time. Are you in agreement with that? Yes, I'm happy with that, that's fine. Okay, thank you very much. So if you're happy with 20 minutes that's fine, but you can go up to the 30 that the others are having, but we can stick to that time frame. So we're here today now and we're here for the full review hearing and as Mr Barmers just explained, there's new evidence because this is the full review and they were under the interim steps meetings as part of the summer review that was brought a few weeks ago. So the procedure for today will be that the police will go first with their evidence as they've brought the review, then licensing then yourselves. On each of those occasions after the evidence has been presented, the members have an opportunity to ask these officers any questions and the same for yourselves when you present your evidence. We don't allow for cross examination, although if you do feel quite strongly there's a question that needs to be answered that you don't feel has been, you can request through the chair that you can ask that question and the chair will decide and will take advisements as to whether that is relevant to be answered. Okay, so that's that one. Once we've done that side of it, we then do the summing up and it works in reverse order on the summing up, so you guys will go first as the premises, then licensing and then the police will go last. So the decision, when it comes to the decision making, the members will usually pass a motion to deliberate in private. Easiest way to explain that is that everybody from me and Pete are going this way, leaves the room, we don't take part in any of the deliberations, they hold that in private and then I'm given the decision later and I will email you both. It'll just be one or two liners to say what the decision was and then within five working days you'll get the full letter explaining the rationale for the decision. The only other thing I wanted to mention is we've got two observers in the back, obviously it's a public meeting so they could be here anywhere. It was from Merseyside Police who were here as part of their training, won't be participating in the meeting. I think that's it unless I've missed anything chair, but I think that is everything, so I could probably open the meeting with the presentation of the report if that's okay. Can I just ask you any questions from the members at all? Just clarify, sorry, the after the submissions, essentially that's the end of the hearing then and the decision will be communicated by email today? So it's not a question that will be required to sit in the town all the way for a decision to Thank you, that's fine. Thank you. Okay, alright well. Okay, so we're here today now for a review of the premises license for Maloney's which is PL0620 The report that everyone will have had sight of details the reasons why the review has been brought, which has been brought by Merseyside Police The just bear with me one second Sorry, it takes some time to find things on screens rather than on paper in front of you, so just bear with me one second Nothing's going right for us today is it? Sorry. Okay. Okay, so section three of the report details the reasons the background for the review and the reasons for the recommendations that are contained within the report I won't go into detail because you will have all read them and I'm sure you'll hear them as time goes on during the course of the meeting So, today as part of the conclusions the subcommittee are required to determine the application for the review received by Merseyside Police, consider what steps it considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and decide whether the interim steps should be withdrawn or become the subject of any steps which it considers are appropriate when making its determination on the review and I think that is it from my side of it chair unless there's any questions for me on the actual report Okay, thank you I do apologize about that. Okay, please go ahead and give your evidence please Thank you very much chair. Good morning obviously to everybody and obviously to the committee. I have requested that the CCTV that I will be showing today to support Merseyside Police's review application in this hearing is to be viewed in private restricting access to both public and media under regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 and hearings and regulations 2005 due to the potential of an ongoing investigation into this matter I don't know whether you want to watch it before I make my submissions or if you would like to watch it after I make my submissions. It is something that you guys can view I am going to refer I'm going to describe the incidents that some of these incidents are on the CCTV footage so it may be of benefit to watch it before I'd agree with that it would make sense So under regulation 14 subsection 1 of the Licensing Act hearing regulations a licensing hearing should take place in public however the licensing authority may exclude from the public from all or part of a hearing where it considers it outweighs the public interest in the hearing or part of the hearing taking place in public. Furthermore schedule 12A of the local Government Act 1972 states that information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of a crime is exempt information so long as in the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. So it's a question for members do you agree with the police's request for the hearing to go into private CCTV footage to be played. Okay thank you. Members do you agree to that? Okay. Okay. Just like to say that the subcommittee has satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exception under section 12/ has been reported to the police the offender may well have been apprehended at scene but unfortunately that was not the case. On page 31 of your bundle you will find a submission from Merseyside Police in relation to this incident from the 1st of January at quarter past midnight where the door staff at Melones have made a passing police officer aware of a male at the premises who is refusing to leave. The 16 year old missing male was located at the front of the premises intoxicated incapable of looking after himself with white powder later identified by this child as ketamine around his nose. The young man was spoken to several times by the police and safeguarding and refused to say if he had been inside Candy Club or not. The premises was closed for a full refit literally a couple of hours after this incident and following this officers faced some problems making contact at the premises due to the fact it was closed. Police were later told by the venue that the male had not been inside the premises but due to the extended closure for refurbishment the police and the protecting vulnerable persons unit were unable to obtain any CCTV footage from the premises to verify this one way or another. Candy Club closed a couple of hours later the same day. Following an extensive and I have no doubt expensive refurbishment the premises reopened as Melones on the 17th of February 2024 still under the management of Mr Edwards as the premises license holder. The first incident of note since the premises opened at Melones was on the 29th of February at half past two in the morning as per page 35 of your bundle a report of a female being assaulted inside Melones a member of the public has reported seeing a female being ejected from the premises after witnessing her aggressively pushing another female. This person was concerned enough by what they had witnessed to call the police but unfortunately the person reporting the matter wished to remain anonymous and didn't pick up on recall but didn't provide enough detail for the matter to be further investigated or recorded within the police systems. We then have an incident from the 8th of March at half past eight at night on page 37 of your bundle you'll find the police logs. A police officer comes across a fight on the pavement outside Melones. A number of extremely drunk persons were reported at scene who had been told to be coming out of Melones. Council CCTV had to be requested to monitor the area due to the fighting. There was no obvious serious injuries noted by the attending officer but no person present was willing to cooperate with the police and no complaints were put forward. There is a further incident from the 30th of March page 39 of your bundle provides the police information, two logs and a pocket notebook entry. This incident took place at 1807 hours. There is some CCTV of this. The community support officer has come across a male in the street with a head injury in the road at the side of Melones. A large crowd of people were noted at scene and further patrols had to be requested to assist with the large crowd that had gathered. An eyewitness stated that a male had been punched to the face and fallen and banged his head. A photograph of the resulting injury is found on page 43 of your bundle of evidence. This was in fact a domestic incident. It started when the male was sat inside Melones. Another male has entered and at 1756 the male shoves the victim across the booth and gestures for him to go outside. Customers follow. The staff member watches on from behind the bar. Customers are seen to be involved. They are in and out the premises. They are clearly sharing with the staff what has happened. Staff are seen to be aware. They go to watch what's happening out of the window for a time with their mobile phone in their hand and they eventually go outside the premises. The male victim is lying in the street for approximately 10 minutes after this until the passing community support officer is made aware from a member of the public. No one again from the premises calls the police to report this matter despite it stemming from an initial assault inside the bar and despite staff seemingly being aware of what had happened. On page 51 of your bundle at 0444 hours on the 1st of April a sergeant on patrol was flagged down by a member of the public and informed that there were people inside Melones causing problems and that they had knives. The male was said to be causing issues and threatening the use of the knife during a disagreement with somebody else and was reportedly repeatedly reaching into his waistband as if the knife was there and make him relevant threats. Excuse me, am I okay to interrupt if I've got a question? If you'll just hang on till the end. Okay. Then I'll bring you in okay. A short video clip of the disturbance inside the premises was shown to the officer at scene. The male involved is allegedly known to the police and does have previous convictions for carrying knives. However, despite the best efforts of the police and the CCTV operator the male was never located because there was a significant delay of reporting this incident to the police and when it had reportedly happened inside the premises because nobody from the premises had made the police aware of this disturbance inside. The person reporting unfortunately left the area whilst the police were searching for the male and no further details of that reporting person were passed. But again, like I said, there was no call to the police in relation to the issues raised which has obviously raised further concerns due to the issue with the knife from the 23rd of December where the male has come out of the premises and subsequently this incident has transpired in the street at the side. We then were concerned on the 20th of April where a female was arrested for being drunk and disorderly behaviour and assaulting a police officer. This female was extremely intoxicated in the street after being inside Maloney's. We then have an incident from later on that night at 0 to 50 hours which you will have CCTV footage of eventually hopefully. One male comes out of Maloney's he is clearly agitated, he sees another male in the crowd and within seconds of leaving the premises and within close proximity of staff and management he has sucker punched the male to the face from behind and knocked him unconscious. The male is clearly unconscious because as he falls to the floor he doesn't put his hands out to save himself and smashes his face into the pavement. Mr Edwards himself was stood on one door and the doorman that works at Maloney's was stood on the other door. Nobody moved. No first aid was offered by either of those two parties. Members of the public from the CCTV in various states of sobriety judging by the video have rolled the unconscious male now onto his back which obviously if anybody has a first aid background you will be aware that that presents further risk to an unconscious person. I have had since a discussion with Mr Edwards in preparation for this hearing and he informs me that the male who walks onto the footage at the end that you will see does in fact assist this male. This gentleman has approached from over the road and according to Mr Edwards has taken the male inside the bar and helped him and this person is in fact a staff member from Maloney's. As evidence to prove this you will see in your disclosure bundle from Mr Edwards there is a screenshot of messages from this gentleman thanking the people at the premises who assisted him. There is further down a confusing reference to only needing a short clip of the CCTV as the person doesn't want to make the club blazing but I would suggest that the committee can draw their own inferences from whatever that should mean because I don't have a clue. This gentleman required emergency surgery and had to have his jaw plated but there was no call to the police in this matter. My understanding is that staff called a family member who collected him and took him to hospital but Mr Edwards would like us to believe that this incident that the summary review was called about is an isolated and one-off incident and I think we're drawing towards the fact that there are a number of incidents that are connected directly to Maloney's. During a meeting with Peter Edwards at St Helens Town Hall on the 14th of May I raised police concerns about the escalating number of incidents at the premises. I showed him a list of incidents similar to the list that you have on page 11 to 16 of your bundle. He was aware of the incident where the mail was knocked out and Mr Edwards was shown the footage that the police had been sent. The police licensing officers, Inspector Griffiths and the council principals operations officer expressed their concerns around the poor way in which these incidents were being handled and the lack of reporting at the premises. Mr Edwards was surprised and repeated that he couldn't have prevented these incidents and that he didn't think that they were his responsibility because they were outside his premises and he felt that there wasn't anything to do with Maloney's because these incidents had happened in the streets. It would appear that he has had advice from a door team that are currently working for him that this is the case. Mr Edwards is also suggesting that the number of incidents have only increased due to the fact that he has recently increased his training hours which is why the number of incidents has spiked. I personally explained to Mr Edwards that although we wish they didn't, incidents do happen within licensed premises and it's not always just about prevention because we completely accept that sometimes there are no warning signals. We completely understand that there isn't always a build up or a precursor and I explained to him on the 14th of May that there is an expectation that they deal with incidents in the most responsible way in order to support the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. I explained to him about calling the police at the earliest opportunity to prevent matters escalating and assisting police in quickly detaining offenders when these incidents happen, providing first aid if possible, calling an ambulance and he was also informed about the use of the council radio. I explained the importance of preservation of crime scenes and following this discussion Mr Edwards stated that he completely understood, was happy to take the advice on board and that he would immediately share this information amongst his staff with extra training and an email confirming this discussion can be found on page 57 to 58 of your bundle. Unfortunately, Merseyside Police were then made aware of two more recent incidents from the 19th of May where at quarter past three in the morning there was a report of a staff member sexually assaulting a female at the premises. The female reported that a door staff member has been all over her for most of the night and that he has eventually ejected her from the premises and slapped her on the bottom as she's left. Excuse me, there is CCTV of this incident which obviously you will see. A person outside the premises seems to see this and attempts to challenge what's happened. You can see from the footage she's extremely unhappy and she appears to try and tell a male that I know to be another doorman from the premises. The victim explains that she tried to get back inside the premises to report the matters to the management but when she couldn't she leaves and flags down a patrol outside the premises and informed them of the assault. I have since been informed after the meeting with Mr Edwards that the doorman that I know to be a doorman who works at that premises was not on duty that night which is why he didn't assist. And then we go to the incident on the 23rd at 0235 hours where a member of the public flags down a patrol and reports a suspected stabbing at Maloney's. Again there is CCTV footage of how the incident plays out in the premises and page 65 and onwards on your bundle is the logs that came to the police in relation to that matter. A member of the public has flagged down a patrol and reported this stabbing and on attendance it is clear that there has been serious violence within the premises displayed in front of staff resulting in a section 18 assault where one male was hit in the face with a glass, a section 47 assault where one male was knocked unconscious who happens to be one of the doorman at the premises and another assault where another male whilst being dragged out the premises has his head stamped on and is punched and kicked all over his head and his body. Serious injuries were caused but again there was no call to the police no call to the ambulance and there was no evidence of any first aid offered. One door staff member does absolutely nothing one of the bar staff begins to clean up the crime scene by mopping the blood but then does thankfully stop. The most seriously injured male from this incident has got life changing injuries and had to have surgery to have glass removed from his eyeball but this incident further highlighted to Merseyside Police that the behaviour of the patrons at Maloney's is leading to serious violence both in and immediately around the premises. It highlighted the lack of understanding around the licence from the operators at the premises as staff on request of the offender just handed him a glass that later became the weapon used despite the fact that there was a specific glass condition already in place at this premises to prevent these types of incidents from happening. The CCTV shows he was not the only male drinking out of a glass at that premises on that night and as you can see from other CCTV glasses routinely used throughout the premises despite this condition that they should already have toughened nucleated non-splintering glass that should be being observed. This is not a one off this gentleman being handed this glass is not a one off. It again shows the staff consistent refusal or reluctance to call the police or an ambulance and the knock on effect of this is now causing serious concerns and issues of serious violence in and around Maloney's and Ormskirk Street. As mentioned in Inspector Griffith's statement you will see on page 17 of your bundle there is a map of St. Helens town centre. This highlighted area has been identified by the home office as a hotspot for serious violence and antisocial behaviour. As per pages 5 to 7 of the bundle these are crime recording maps that the inspector submitted covering this serious violence and antisocial behaviour hotspot for the last 12 months. You can clearly see from the tables on the right hand side of the page there is a high level of recorded crime in the early hours over a weekend during the night time economy period and majority of these incidents are alcohol related. Whilst mayors decide police are not in any way shape or form holding Maloney's responsible for all of the issues around the town the fact remains that the premises sit centrally within this serious violence hotspot and from the incidents that we are aware of and I stress because of the under reporting from the premises that we are aware of the current behaviour from the clientele, the staff and the management does contribute to this problem. It is not enough to say that the issues are happening outside the premises when it is known that some of the issues are directly inside or have begun at Maloney's and spilled into the street and further escalation could have been prevented with swift actions from management and staff. Mayors decide police are committed to working to make St Helens town a safer place to socialise but without a joined up and cohesive approach with all licensed premises this is going to be extremely difficult. We feel that despite support from neighbourhood policing including regular visits from both police licensing and council licensing Mr Edwards is failing to understand that he has a pivotal role as a responsible operator to ensure that his customers and staff are safe and that crime and disorder is actively prevented. Mayors decide police don't have very much confidence at all in this operator moving forward and doubt the ability to run a safe venue as it is currently being operated. I appreciate you have a full range of options open to you in relation to this premises following this incident of serious violence but there are several sections of the statutory guidance that I would respectfully ask yourself and the committee to take into account when considering your decision today. Sections 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7 of the Licensing Act along with 11.19, 11.20, 11.22 and 11.23 and also with consideration of your own licensing policy. Thank you very much for your time today and apologies about the CCTV and I hope we will be able to rectify that. Ok, thank you very much. Excuse me, can I just mention my colleague has just gone over to St Ann's police station, although we've sent the appropriate links requested by Mr Heaps, it's not uploading onto the council system correctly so she's just basically gone across the road to get a USB and uploaded it so she shouldn't be too long, it will take a matter of minutes hopefully and she'll be straight back. I think before, I was just trying to get an idea of how long it will take for the CCTV to save questions on that. Thank you, sorry I've just realised my microphone wasn't on there. Can you turn your mic on please? You said something about one of the people had said they wanted to keep the club blasting and you said you didn't understand what that meant. Does anybody know what it means? So the disclosure was provided by Mr Barma, it's in your disclosure documentation, it's a screenshot of a conversation and the conversation goes on further down to say big thanks for assisting him on that night when he was obviously in trouble they've wished him a speedy recovery, he's asked about CCTV and absolutely rightly Mr Edwards has said we can't give that to you it has to go to the police and the response to that is, yeah that's what I mean but only the part where the thing happened to me, because I don't want to make you club blazing if you get me, I don't understand what that means. Okay. We're going to play now. Right, I believe we're going to play the video now. ... ... ... ... Okay everybody, I'd just like to confirm that the CCT footage has been seen and we're now going back on with the meeting, yeah? Okay. Right, so we're back to questions now here. Is there any questions from members at all? I think council Claire, you wanted to come in before didn't you? Thank you chair. I did and apologies for interrupting you Nicola, I just thought it was important for me to interrupt at that time because I was trying to make a note of the chronology of events, you've obviously put forward an argument that it wasn't a one off incident so I was trying to make a note of all of them and I've missed a date of a couple of them and that's why I stopped doing the point. So if it's okay, I've got the 17th of February, the 29th of February, the 8th of March, the 30th of March, then I've missed a date and then I've got the 20th of April. Is it the 1st of April? The 1st of April, thank you. Right, are there any questions at all? No? Okay, can I just ask a couple of questions please? More in relation to what happened after when we saw that. You mentioned that the blood was stopped, the cleaning up of the blood, the second incident we saw on the video there. Can I just ask was, in your opinion, was it stopped in time for the evidence not to remain, not to be destroyed? After the event, having watched the CCTV, fortunately, I don't believe any evidence has been destroyed on this occasion, very, very fortunately. But I do believe that that's more by good luck than good management. Okay, thank you. And just one other one, I don't know whether you know this or not, but the question of the eye injury, it was mentioned that, you know, that that particular person could have lost sight in one or, I think, one or both eyes. Was there any news on that at all? Has there been anything coming back on that, whether the gentleman did actually lose the sight on that? So the gentleman involved in this has engaged and disengaged and engaged and disengaged a number of times with the police as far as this investigation is concerned. Each time we've engaged with him, we've had an update as to how he is, and the last that we were told, we had to wait to see what his recovery was going to be. The glass had successfully been removed. He didn't currently have full vision, but ultimately it was part of a healing process and they will not know until he is fully recovered for want of another expression. But that was the last update that we had. OK, thanks very much for that. OK. There will be no further questions. We'll carry on then. Is that all right, members here? Am I able to ask some questions of the police? Just pull with your mic on, OK. (Inaudible) Mike, can I just ask what the question is? The questions relate, sir, to the, some clarification from Officer Ireland in relation to the meeting on the 14th of May, and who requested that meeting. And also, I just, there's a couple of points I'd like to clarify regarding a further meeting that Officer Ireland's had with Mr. Edwards on Monday of this week. OK. I'll allow the question. OK. So the question is put to the Chair. Well, if I can then ask the Chair then to invite Officer Ireland to clarify at paragraph 16 of Inspector Griffith's statement reference to a meeting on the 14th of May. It's on page 4 of the police bundle. Can she confirm, because I think she attended that meeting, can she confirm that that meeting was requested by Mr. Edwards, not the police? I think, could you answer that? I think it's good. Yeah, I can confirm that is correct. And perhaps just a follow-up question out of that, Chair, please, that in spite of all of these incidents, the police have never requested a meeting with Mr. Edwards prior to the 14th of May. I can confirm that that is the case. There was a meeting requested on the 14th by Mr. Edwards, which everybody present here attended, and we saw that meeting as an opportunity to raise the issues that were occurring at Maloney's. I can confirm it was requested by Peter, but I think Mr. Edwards will confirm that whilst he was there, we took the opportunity to raise our concerns at that time. OK. Perhaps you can come back on that later on. Yes, thank you. Just a further question, Chair, please. Can the officer confirm that there was a further meeting with Mr. Edwards on Monday of this week, the date being 17th? Yeah, I can confirm that is correct. Mr. Edwards provided you with an updated training manual, which I'm grateful that you have a copy of there, and also brought in a sample of the nucleated/polycarbonate glassware that will be used exclusively. I can confirm that that is correct, yeah. Thank you. And I think you could bring those points up when it comes to your turn as well. Thank you, Chair. OK, thank you. Are you OK now? Thank you. Thank you. OK. Licensors, would you like to come in now? Thank you, Chair. In respect of the limited amount of CCTV I've got, whatever the direction of the committee is, do you want to see it now? I don't make much reference to it during my presentation, but or do you want me to carry on and stop and then it be shown? I'll give a brief description of what's on the screen. Mr. Barmer and Mr. Edwards have both seen sight of it today, Mr. Edwards' previous list of that. OK. Thank you, Chair members. On behalf of the Licensing Authority, I have made representation in full support of the summary review application brought by Merseyside Police in respect of Maloney's at 25 Ormskirk Street in St. Helens. I'm in full support with Merseyside Police that these premises have seriously undermined the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder. The violent events that occurred at these premises on the 23rd of May of this year have clearly demonstrated that Maloney's have seriously undermined the prevention of crime and disorder objective and the actions or indeed inactions of the staff on duty at the time of these incidents has given rise for me to believe that if these premises were permitted to recommence trade, then the licensing objectives, particularly that of the prevention of crime and disorder would be seriously undermined and to put it plainly and simply this would mean more people getting seriously hurt or possibly even worse. As part of my evidence, I have submitted details of licensing guidance context and this includes that there needs to be a clear focus on the promotion of the licensing objective, which of course the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm, that licensing legislation supports other key aims and purposes and that these are vitally important and should be the principal aims for everybody involved in licensing work and that includes protecting the public and local residents from crime, antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance caused by irresponsible license premises and also by giving the police and the licensing authority the powers they need to effectively manage and police the night time economy and take action against those premises that are causing problems. The licensing context also goes on to say that licensing authorities should look to the police as the main source of advice on crime and disorder, that premises license holders, in this case Mr. Edwards remain responsible for ensuring that licensing law and licensing conditions are observed and that reviewing a premises license represents a key protection for the community and that where it is found that premises are deteriorating irresponsibly, the licensing authorities should not hesitate, and it goes further to say, to take tough action and revoke the license. So, and from this policy perspective this review has become necessary for the promotion of the licensing objective and the public must be protected. Mr. Edwards as the premises license holder is responsible for promoting the objectives of Maloney's and responsible for compliance with its conditions and he has been given ample notice of any concerns that the licensing authority has had in the build up to the events at Maloney's on the 23rd of May. And those events on the 23rd of May have demonstrated that Maloney's have traded irresponsibly and consideration should therefore I believe be given to revoking the license here. And the licensing guidance goes on, that it is further good practice to give license holders early warning of any concerns and in my evidence this can be demonstrated in the multi-agency meetings held with Mr. Edwards on the 8th of February and the 14th of May of this year. And I would wish to note that when the licensing authority and the police met with Mr. Edwards on the 8th of February, that this was indeed before Maloney's reopened and I produced in my evidence the email that I had sent, which I believe is on pages 47 and 48 of my bundle, and I would ask members to consider the contents of this because it was reiterated to Mr. Edwards that he was responsible for licensing law being observed at Maloney's and that compliance with conditions was also his responsibility. I further pointed out that on the 29th of December 2023 it had been found that an unlicensed door supervisor had been found to be employed at the premises. And the email concludes that on behalf of the licensing authority and the police we wanted Mr. Edwards to get it right and to quote again to be switched on to the risks at Maloney's. So when these premises operated as candy club the licensing authority and police worked with Mr. Edwards to update the premises license conditions with a view to this promoting the licensing objectives and this was done by way of a minor variation to the license in September of 2022. And my evidence includes emails regarding an alleged incident with a door supervisor at the then candy club in June of 2022 when a male was allegedly knocked unconscious. These email trails can be found on pages 19 to 34. And it is my understanding that the police investigation was unable to progress into this due to requested CCTV from the then candy club not being provided by Mr. Edwards and in an email the reasoning for this given by Mr. Edwards in an email dated the 28th of June 2022 and signed at 14/24 was that the CCTV could not be provided because a council road sweeper due to a council road sweeper taking out my outside CCTV and causing major CCTV issues. So I would submit that the licensing objectives can only be promoted through compliance with license conditions and the cooperation of license holders with the responsible authorities. So in response to this incident the licensing authority along with the police worked with Mr. Edwards and it was highlighted to him prior to this of the concerns that we had in respect of Candy Club for the period of October 2015 to April 2022. These were forwarded to Mr. Edwards and this evidence is that we as responsible authorities have engaged extensively and given early notice of any concerns. So the amended license was issued for Candy Club in September of 2022 and the conditions on this license remained as previously in respect to CCTV. The variation was mainly to update the CCTV conditions however the nucleated toughened non-splintering glass remained a condition, a smart dress code remained a condition and that staff needed to be trained remained a condition. So I would want to reiterate that these conditions of the conditions as now were also conditions from the first ever granting of this license in July 2015 and a copy of these original conditions can be seen on pages 12 to 13. So to the events of the 23rd of May of this year I agree that they should not be viewed in isolation, they should be viewed as a culmination of events. My evidence has also provided extracts from our statement of licensing policy which are the policy statement which is titled transforming our town and these extracts include the reiterating of some of the points made earlier and also that in respect of conditions on premises licenses they need to be capable of being met. So I would want to note again that the violence events on the 23rd of May of this year included an individual being struck in the face by a glass and it has been a condition on the Maloney's license since it was first granted in July 2015 that nucleated, toughened, non-splintering, stroke, shatterproof glass will be used for consumption of alcohol at the premises. So it should not have been possible for anybody to be struck by a glass at Maloney's because it is conditioned as described above and has been since the license was first granted in July 2015. Our statement of licensing policy also notes that in respect of reviews that the licensing authority will view particularly seriously applications for review that involve serious risk to the public safety have been identified which management is unwilling or unable to correct. I will submit that this is the case here. And the police are frequently called to attend incidents of crime and disorder and again I will submit that this is the case here. Members the calling of a review is not done lightly but I do believe that the events of the 23rd of May were a culmination of events and should not be viewed in isolation. And these violent incidents and events will likely continue if these premises are permitted to recommence trading. Mr Edwards has been the premises license holder at these premises since they were first licensed in July 2015. Mr Edwards is an experienced premises license holder and he has had time enough to understand and implement his license conditions and to understand his responsibilities. Candy Club previously operated as a late night trading alcohol and entertainment premises mainly on Fridays and Saturday nights into the early morning up until the 17th of February when the premises reopened and became Maloney's. On its reopening we were advised and it just transpired to be true that the premises would begin to trade from about 12 o'clock midday all through the weekend at the weekend up until 3 o'clock in the morning and sometimes even until 5 o'clock in the morning through the built in condition for additional days within its license and also for the submission of temporary event notices. So in my evidence on page 14 I attached a summary of reports I was aware of for Candy Club for the period of 2023 and as concerning as these are they are nothing in comparison to what is now being reported at Maloney's. Because I calculate nine reported incidents at Candy Club for a 12 month period of 2023 whilst at Maloney's for the period of time that the premises reopened from the period of time that the premises reopened that being the 17th of February of 2024 to the incidents of the 23rd of May which is a little over three months there were 22 reports and I submitted the 2024 reports on pages 56 to 59 of my evidence and Mr Edwards has shown a summary of these reports for the 23rd of May incidents when we met with him along with the police on the 14th of May 2024. So again Mr Edwards has been well aware of the reports that have been made to us and these reports as outlined earlier they report incidents of aggression fighting, drugs, drunkenness, general antisocial behaviour noise nuisance and a sexual assault. The reports show incidents from midweek as well as at weekends. On the 8th of February 2024 which was a Friday going into Saturday there were eight incidents reported to me by our council CCTV. And I am becoming concerned that there now appears to be a level of acceptance by the management of Maloney's that incidents such as have been reported will occur and when they do the staff at Maloney's appear to wish to discharge themselves from taking any appropriate action. In my evidence I have also detailed that Mr Edwards has previously forwarded a simple caution when it was noted that he had made false statements on temporary event notices that had been submitted. This can be seen on page 43 to 46. Because he had stated that he was a personal licence holder when in fact he was not. And also in March 2024 Mr Edwards was forwarded a warning letter from the Security Industry Authority. That can be seen on page 49. After it was noted that he had engaged in security activities i.e. acted as a door supervisor when in fact he was not licensed by the SIA to carry out these activities. So I believe it's been evidence that Mr Edwards appears to be unaware of his licensing responsibilities. So since the Maloney's premises reopened in February 2024 it has become almost inevitable that there will be reports of crime and disorder attributed to the premises. And these premises now have now become in my view inextricably linked with crime and disorder that is often violence and this must not be allowed to continue and appropriate action needs to be taken which I would respectfully submit would be to report the licence. In my evidence I have also included an email received from the designated premises supervisor of another town centre premises near to Maloney's. And I would ask that members give careful consideration to the contents of this email as it highlights an overall fear should Maloney's be permitted to recommence trading. So this email actually notes that the premises i.e. Maloney's opens early and plays incredibly loud music throughout the day that the venue again Maloney's seems to attract certain quote certain seems to attract certain individuals who are often evidently intoxicated excessively or using drugs. And then when the DPS of this town centre premises leaves they see some Maloney's customers quote staggering about just outside of the venue being loud and raucous with drugs being seen used and door supervisors apparently just looking on. And also that physical altercations involving Maloney's customers have been seen outside the premises with security not intervening. And this email notes that they that the DPS of the town centre premises believes that the number of incidents at Maloney's is quote disproportionate and that there might be quote underlying issues at Maloney's. And it goes further to say that it is a real shame that people, women in particular are made to feel fearful of potential altercations. And that the comments that have been made come from a place of concern for safety and the local community and that there is a fear that if the site were to reopen then altercations would continue and take place and there is the potential for loss of life which we should which should be our utmost concern realistically. So I would ask members if they would carefully consider this email. It can be seen on page 54 to 55 of my evidence. As this provides a perspective from someone working in the night time economy and highlights real concern and quite tellingly it highlights fear. So the CCTV presented by the police demonstrates that Maloney have undermined the prevention of crime and disorder objective. The coverage from the 23rd of July is shocking and it was totally unacceptable that no one from the premises thought to contact the emergency services. These are not I believe the actions of a responsibly run licensed premises. In my evidence I have provided an extract from some recent night time economy awareness training that was provided as part of the Safer Streets project. Mr. Edwards and his DPS Miss Murphy and another named member of staff from Maloney has actually attended this training. Brief details of the training can be found on page 50 to 51 of my submission. And a section of the training provides for interventions and this includes the question do they need medical attention stroke in ambulance? I think that the 23rd of May 2024 incident clearly warranted medical attention or an ambulance being called and this was not done by anybody at Maloney's and this is both unacceptable and quite and in my view negligent. Because I would submit that following the events of the 23rd of May it should have been instinctive staff at the premises to call the emergency services. The CCTV council CCTV team have unfortunately had to contact me frequently following reports of disorder they have observed outside of Maloney's premises and I have listed in my evidence a number of these. At this point do we want to see the CCTV? So at this point are we ok with the CCTV? I've also got a member saying it's quite cold in here. Just to confirm we're just going to go into private while the CCTV footage is viewed so for the sake of any members of the public watching the webcast will be turned off now temporarily. Back in session now Chris ok? I believe that this CCTV demonstrates to me what Maloney's has now become. They are the premises who are seriously undermining the prevention of crime and disorder objective. A culture has now developed of an all day all through the week into the early hours alcohol and entertainment driven premises where frequent crime and disorder occurs where the premises management appear ill equipped and unable to control it. Going back to the 23rd of May incidents this happened at quarter past two in the morning on a Thursday which is effectively a Wednesday into a Thursday and it just goes to show that incidents of this nature can happen at any time at Maloney's whether it be through the week or at the weekend. A summary review of the Maloney's premises license was necessary as was the interim steps to suspend the premises license pending determination of this review. A violent incident occurred at Maloney's on the 23rd of May a number of violent incidents indeed on the 23rd of May and these should not be viewed in isolation because Maloney's has now become inextricably linked with incidents of crime and disorder but is often violent. As responsible authorities we have tried to improve the situation but this has failed and I do not believe that there is anything further that we can do and it is now up to you as members of this committee to take the appropriate steps. Early and multi-agency interventions have not worked. Amended conditions have not worked. External professional training has not worked. Consideration on the revocation of the Maloney's premises license must I believe be given and I would ask members to consider all of its options and consider further whether these premises have undermined the prevention of crime and disorder objective and whether they are likely to continue to do so. So the question must be can Maloney's change and improve? Can it promote the licensing objectives particularly the prevention of crime and disorder? Should it be allowed to continue to trade irresponsibly attracting the same clientele and during the same hours that it is currently authorized? Because it is the firm consideration of the licensing authority that if these premises did reopen they would bring further crime and disorder into our town centre and this would be unacceptable and it would not be in keeping with our licensing responsibilities. Thank you. Ok Chris thank you very much. Alright members any questions at all? Councillor Malone. Thanks Chris. On the first video you showed it was 5.15 in the morning. Was there a special license given for that day? That would have been one of the special day provisions that are built into the Maloney's premises license on a very small number of licenses there are in them that on no more than 12 occasions per calendar year if they give 10 days written notice that they are to trade until 5 am then they can submit that and trade until 5 am. Ok there is 12 occasions in each year that they can officially put in for the late license. Any other questions at all? No? Can I just ask in the last one obviously we saw a lot of mingling going on outside and then the eventual fighting what went on there. In your opinion what could the establishment have done better to alleviate the problem there? Well I would say that obviously the two males exited the premises so it's sensible to think that they were obviously arguing inside the premises and then took it outside the premises so those people inside the premises would have seen this, could have preempted it and maybe used the pub watch radio to shout up to say there's going to be a group of people outside or two males who might be engaged in a fight maybe put a focus on it and to also to ring the police, to make them aware, make that call. There are two men fighting on the streets of the town centre at 5 to 12 on a Tuesday night you might want to come and have a look at least make the call but I don't believe the call was made, the calls are never made. Ok, thank you for the clarification, thank you. Ok, right, can I... Yes, I've got a few questions of Mr Kenny which... Can I ask you what the questions are then again for you? Can I ask Mr Kenny to confirm he's referred to an incident on the 5th of June 2022 when CCTV wasn't able to be provided my instructions are and I'd ask Mr Kenny to confirm or clarify that CCTV of the inside of the premises was actually provided to him on request. He's mentioned that outside there was an incident with a road sweeper which precluded the outside cameras from being able to be used but my instructions are that CCTV from inside the venue was provided so can he confirm or deny that that was in fact the case? Ok Chris, could you confirm that? I didn't request the CCTV, it was the police officer who made contact with police licensing so I can't answer whether or not CCTV was provided. I can confirm what I wasn't approached about. Thank you. Is Mr Kenny in relation to the incident that was just been shown on the 7th of May, again my instructions are that that incident was called in using the town link facility to the local authority, is Mr Kenny able to confirm or deny that that was in fact the case? It was called in by door staff. I can't confirm or deny that, I don't know. Can I also ask Mr Kenny in relation to the, I think, whether they're classed as temporary events notices or not but the 12 instances where the premises opening time can be varied to 5am that's on the licence, does an application need to be approved by the licensing authority before it's granted? No it doesn't, it's built into the license. So it's automatic. And finally, can I ask Mr Kenny to clarify? I think it should be the final one. Yes this will be the final one. If he was so concerned about instances and as he says tried to exhaust engagement with Mr Edwards, why there haven't been any licensing meetings or discussions between February of 2023 and May of 2024? I don't know if you can clarify that, if he was so concerned. Forgive my ignorance but is that a question? Yeah. I think the question was why haven't there been any meetings or discussions between February 2023 and May 2024 if the licensing authority was so concerned? We have had discussions and had contacts without any specific meetings, I can't answer that, I don't know. So there have been but you can't refer to any specific dates. Thank you. Okay, it's now your turn Michael, we'd like to give you your evidence. Sorry, we were just discussing whether because it's 20 past one and you want to take a lunch break and maybe resume at two o'clock, obviously would you prefer to give your evidence first? And then we'll go for lunch after that. I'm in the committee's hands, either way I'd be grateful for a short comfort break even if the committee isn't prepared. I think we'll give a ten minute comfort break, come back and give your evidence and then we'll see about the break for lunch if that's okay with members as well, is that alright? So we'll go for a ten minute comfort break now, alright, thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Alright Michael, it's your turn to give evidence. As you're aware I appear on behalf of the owner and premises license holder, Mr. Edwards. We've now been through a number of hearings, an interim steps hearing and an interim steps review. That application and those interim steps were brought on the basis of an incident of serious disorder on the 23rd of May of 2024. That incident has been addressed previously extensively and I'm aware at least two of the members of the committee have sat on one if not both of those previous hearings. In addition the premises license holder has been set out in the written submissions that were submitted before today's hearing, so I'd only intend given the time to go through them at length. But I'd just like to pull out some of the salient points and summarize the position in respect of that incident on the 23rd of May before moving on to the previous incidents that have now been alluded to in this meeting. Mr. Edwards accepts that his staff and a member of the external door company did not do their jobs properly on the 23rd of May. However, Mr. Edwards has acted firmly and swiftly to address that problem. He has removed that member of staff. They are no longer employed at the venue. The member of door staff for the external company has been identified by Mr. Edwards to the company and been asked to be removed permanently from the venue. In addition, Mr. Edwards has made it clear to the security company that if you pardon the vernacular that they are on their last life and he will have no hesitation to change firms if there is any further incidences or incidents which are attributed either to the door staff's actions or neglect. It's submitted, however, that new conditions which have been proposed and I'll cover in my submissions but are condensed into writing will address the police's and the local authorities' concerns regarding the licensing objectives. I asked PC Ireland and she confirmed that she has seen a new training program which has been rolled out and discussed with the police and a hard copy is available should the committee members wish to see it. In relation to that incident then, it's also important to note that it's been stated on more than one occasion and conceded by the police that that incident could not have been prevented or stopped even with 100 door staff. It is right that the nub of the issue appears to be the way that Maloney staff react or have reacted to incidents in the past. If I can then turn to the evidence that's been provided by the police and the statement of Inspector Griffiths it is submitted that unfortunately it appears that all the ills of St. Helens Town Centre have been placed at the door of Maloney's previously candy club and I'd submit that it's unfair to close or revoke the licence on the basis of incidents that take place in the city centre in general. You will have read at paragraph 9 of Inspector Griffiths statement that there are 731 incidents of violent crime in what's described as the D-111 beat. I understand that to be St. Helens Town Centre. With the greatest of respects that shouldn't come as a massive surprise to the committee members. It doesn't come as a surprise to a lay person who's not familiar with St. Helens that the town centre would be the busiest place for police involvement. However what is significant is that in the next paragraph of Inspector Griffiths statement he says that 17 incidents have been recorded in relation to Maloney's bar. That represents 2.3% of the 731 incidents of violence that have been recorded in the town centre in the last 12 months. That I would suggest and submit flies in the face of the comments that Maloney's is a prevalent problem bar in the area. Even more of relevance is the fact that of those 17 it's conceded that not all of those incidents directly relate to violence at the premises although it is said that the majority do. So I'd ask the committee to bear that in mind. Paragraph 16 of Inspector Griffiths statement it's a point I've already a question I've already raised with the police. That meeting on the 14th of May Mr. Edwards is very keen for me to stress that meeting on the 14th of May was at Mr. Edwards request. Not at the police's request it was at Mr. Edwards request. And confirmation of that can be found at page 57 of the police's bundle which is an email from Christopher Kenny on the 14th of May to Peter Edwards. At your request a meeting was arranged today the 14th of May with myself and the police. We then turn to the incidents ah sorry there's another point I'd wish to raise in respect of Inspector Griffiths statement I do apologize. A paragraph 12 Inspector Griffiths makes the point that a member of staff had informed police officers that the incident on the 23rd of May had happened outside. The inference there is that staff and it's one that needs to be addressed is that staff have intentionally or with some malicious intent tried to point the blame away from the venue and somehow indicate that it had happened outside. I think with the greatest respect to Inspector Griffiths that is a slight inaccuracy which creates an inaccurate picture of the venue's response to the incident on the 23rd of May. You are aware and I'm not sure whether Inspector Griffiths was aware when he provided his statement but the committee will certainly be aware that there were three incidents which occurred at that venue that evening two of which occurred either exclusively or predominantly outside and the member of staff is clearly I would submit referring to those incidents that happened outside. Obviously the committee will be aware that the situation was febrile and fluid and really to suggest that based on that response that the staff have somehow colluded to ensure that the venue isn't blamed is inaccurate frankly. We'll then please come on to the list of previous incidents. The first of which was when the venue was called Candy Club on the 23rd of December 2023. The committee members hopefully will have noted the police car and then the police van positioned outside of the premises briefly for the first few minutes of that incident before they drive off. Whilst the male perpetrator was found to have had a knife it submitted that it wasn't clear that he had the knife in front of the venue. The CCTV I would submit shows the parties leaving the premises perhaps not in an orderly fashion but not in a particularly aggressive or difficult manner. The parties then after a number of minutes move down the alleyway out of the site of the door staff and out of the site of the front of the venue. Committee members have then seen two further shorter clips which I'm glad that the police will accept actually take place where a struggle takes place at the bottom end of that alleyway. So a good way from the front of the venue. And it's important I think to make the point also that that incident is being viewed and watched by council CCTV cameras and no police are called by the by the council operatives either. I would therefore submit it's unfair to suggest that staff should have done anything other than they did on the 23rd of December. The second incident on the 1st of January to boil this down to its simplest an underage male is refused entry into the premises. Door staff flag the police down. No CCTV was requested I'm told by Mr. Edwards of that incident and as far as the venue is concerned I'd submit that they've acted entirely appropriately at that incident. The inference now and the suggestion that it can't be said or not whether this individual had been drinking in the venue at all I think is unfair and misleading. There's been no suggestion and the incident log is available for the committee to read. There's no suggestion at all that that male was drinking in the venue and there's been no suggestion presented that the venue is known for allowing underage people to drink alcohol in the premises. Incident number three is on the 29th of February of
2. Again the incident log that's available for the committee to review again distilled down into its simplest is one female pushing another separated and removed from the pub. Again no CCTV was requested by the council or the police of Mr. Edwards and that matter wasn't raised to his attention before these proceedings. The fourth incident on the 8th of March this is an incident again that PC Ireland has referred to today. Again the log is available at page 37. I'll pull out some of the relevant entries that the police incident log quote this was just a scuffle between friends, nobody making themselves known, nobody is seen making any complaint, no damage, no allegation of assault. Again for reasons that may well be obvious that matter wasn't brought to Mr. Edwards attention prior to these proceedings. On the 29th of March of 2024 this isn't there isn't an incident log of this matter I don't believe or I haven't seen it but the schedule at the front of the police bundle does reference it. Again this was an argument that's referenced between two customers at the premises there is a reference to door staff appearing not to operate with badges displayed. My instructions in relation to that are with the greatest respect perhaps there is some confusion on the part of the police the police will be aware as the committee members may be also that door staff it's a legal requirement by the SIA to where our identification at all times and that it's a breach of SIA requirements if this is not done. Mr. Edwards himself is a former SIA operative and has friends who operate in the industry still. It's therefore submitted that it's possible that the police have confused off duty or people who aren't working who may well have been in the venue enjoying their down time at that time. Incident number six is the 30th of March. This is the incident where the gentleman you will have seen is pushed once in the venue and then exits the venue with what we understand to be the offender who actually is either his son-in-law or the son of the victims girlfriend. The committee hopefully will have taken from that incident that the gentleman who walks into the premises within 30 seconds has walked over to the victim pushed him once and then the majority of the incident as we say does take place outside. We don't necessarily agree with the police's interpretation of the staff member staff members actions. My instructions are that it is five minutes before the incident is identified to her at which point there are already two PCSO officers outside attending at the scene and that may go some way to explain why the police were not called in relation to that incident. Again hopefully the committee will take on board that the timing of that incident is shortly before 6pm. There's no requirement or condition on the premises license to have door staff at that time and indeed there are no door staff on duty at that time which again may well go some way to explain how and why that incident wasn't identified to the police until a few minutes later. The incident on the 1st of April 2024 this is page 51 of the police's bundle there is reference here that some people in Maloney's with knives slightly confusing this report I would submit because the next entry is that the individual has been kept inside Maloney's and if indeed that is the case that would have been the action of staff and door staff to dissipate or calm down a situation but then it goes on to say that actually a week or two before that the male was seen with a knife rather than on the 1st of April that's further clarified a number of entries down where the police incident log confirms confirmed no knife was seen tonight by MOP patrols. So that's unfortunately a rather confused entry which given the circumstances has been referenced in order to build the case against Maloney's I'd submit. In relation to the incidents that you've been shown today on the 20th of April the 1st one in relation to the female that was arrested by the police it's difficult to understand with the greatest of respect why that matter has been highlighted as one that shows anything other than appropriate behaviour by Maloney's staff. You can quite clearly see the timing it's late it's closing time the female is aggressively pushing away trying to get back into the venue I think there was some suggestion that she'd lost her phone which she hadn't. The police attend on the scene they're already there on the scene she's put into the back of a police car she then somehow ends up face down on the curb again no suggestion that's anything to do with Maloney's that is a treatment by the police and I'm not making any comments in relation to that but it's difficult to see what the criticism of Maloney's staff and Mr. Edwards is on that occasion. The second incident where the male is punched outside the venue that is accepted by Mr. Edwards and will be there that was an unfortunate incident. The fact it takes place outside is no excuse it does take place in close proximity to the venue however what the committee will see hopefully is that that male isn't simply left unattended to there are I think we counted between five and six people friends and other clientele who are stood around trying to assist the individual. The CCTV then cuts off just as a gentleman is seen walking from the right of the picture in a light blue shirt and a cap he was actually a member of staff as you've heard he was the DJ on that evening he walks over and tends to miss the victim sorry he's taken into the venue and looked after and you will see that that member of the public did write it was on social media wasn't it rather than email but you've seen the screenshots of the messages where he thanks the staff at the venue for the way that they assisted him. If I can then turn to an incident on the 2nd of May which is recorded at page 55 of the police bundle with an incident log if I can just summarize this incident that is described as a fight in progress five males fighting wearing hoodies no weapons punching and kicking struggling on the floor CCTV no fight ongoing WX 26 at scene no fight ongoing the Sergeant says the telephone number is registered to an individual who has intel as being the owner of Maloney's so in that case the owners of Maloney's have actually called the police to an incident and if the committee members look at the front page of that incident on the right hand column near the top you'll see an entry there that says hoax calls simply flag that to the committee that when members and the management of the venue call incidents in unfortunately that one appears to have been referenced or logged as a hoax call so it does beg the question really what Mr. Edwards is supposed to do in those circumstances. The incident then on the 19th of May this was the incident where you were shown CCTV of a female who was slapped tapped groped whichever way the committee wants it to view it as she leaves the venue she clearly takes issue with that turns around and makes her position known to who to an individual she thinks is a member of door staff who didn't appear to have been working that night. What Mr. Edwards is keen to make clear is that behavior is totally unacceptable the door security company was spoken to and that member of staff was removed hasn't worked at the venue since and as far as Mr. Edwards is concerned won't work there in the future. Point should be made that no action no further action was taken by the police or I understand that the licensing team or the security industry authority in respect to that member of staff but irrespective words have been said and that member of an external company I'll make the point that this wasn't someone who was directly employed by Mr. Edwards it was an external company has been spoken to and no longer works at that venue as a result of that. The incident on the 23rd of May I've already covered in part or addressed extensively in writing I don't necessarily want to go through that in any great length again I've already covered the steps that Mr. Edwards proposes and will take moving forward if the license is reopened. The licensing officer Mr. Kenny has made reference to an incident on the 5th of June of 2022 I understand that was an incident that involved an assault by a member of door staff on a member of the public that was the allegation that was a previous door company it isn't the company that are currently employed. No suggestion that the incident was due to Maloney's the premises or the venue but it's been raised today as an issue because CCTV wasn't able to be provided. You'll see in the bundle that Mr. Edwards engages and confirms with Mr. Kenny the reason why the external CCTV couldn't be provided my instructions are that the internal CCTV was provided on request and as you've heard Mr. Kenny is unable to refute that. The other incident that is referred to that hasn't been covered I think was the 20th of April 2024 of a female collapsed drunk outside the premises. There isn't a lot of context in relation to that CCTV. Obviously it's been presented to the committee that that was a customer and clientele of the venue. Again I'm not entirely sure why that's been presented to the committee. She's picked up by her family and friends and is placed on a bench outside. There is a police car present I believe on the CCTV throughout that incident as well. The final incident that was referenced and has been provided to you by the licensing team is the incident on the 7th of May at 10 to 12. My instructions are that this incident was radioed through to the council by the town link radio by the door staff and indeed we must assume that it was because it's covered by council CCTV and it wasn't a police incident so it must have been confirmed or identified to the council some way. The door staff there are two males fighting outside in relation to that matter. The member of door staff is located at the front of the premises and you will see as the CCTV progresses it's important that he remains at the front of the premises because one of the males tries to walk back into the venue after the fight and that member of staff door staff actually prevents him from doing so. So whilst and having dealt with a number of these hearings throughout the country in various guises it is an issue and a problem of friction between where the premises responsibility ends and the police's responsibility begins. I'll simply make the point that the fight occurs a good way away from the front of the premises. There would be and I'll be corrected if I've got this wrong but there would only be one member of staff door staff on duty that night as the conditions of the license require and therefore it's entirely appropriate that that member of staff is located where he was rather than extricated himself from the premises and is not cited as to what could happen inside the premises thereafter. In spite of that condition in respect of door staff I'm advised that Mr. Edwards from the 14th of May voluntarily had no fewer than two members of door staff on duty each night at the premises so I added an extra door man voluntarily and you will have seen from the written submissions that I've provided Mr. Edwards is willing and agreeable to having that made as a condition on the license should the committee deem it appropriate. The conditions then that are proposed in fact if I take a step back you've been referenced to the section 182 guidance if I can just highlight the committee paragraph 720 of that guidance. In deciding which of these powers or which of the powers available to it to invoke it is expected that licensing authority should so far as possible seek to establish the cause or causes of the concerns that representations identify. The remedial action taken should generally be directed at these causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response to address the causes of concern that instigated that review. So I'd submit that the approach of the committee today should be looking at conditions and working upwards towards a revocation if no other measure is appropriate rather than starting at revocation and working backwards. In respect of the conditions the conditions that are proposed are ones which we would submit address the concerns, address the issues that have happened and address the licensing objectives in particular the commission of future events of crime and disorder. For the purposes of the hearing as soon as I find them I will read out the proposed conditions. Firstly the mandatory refresher training is implemented to all staff that's to be refreshed every three months. The current licensing condition requires six months. All staff to sign a record to confirm their understanding of said training and Mr. Edwards undertakes that no member of staff will be allowed to work at the venue until they have had and signed up for that training. The presence of the premises on the premises of either the premises license holder, the designated premises supervisor or a qualified personal license holder to be present each night the venue is open from 9pm. Mr. Edwards recognizes that certainly the staff on the 23rd of May should have done better. He recognizes that a greater management presence should go a long way to addressing the way the staff behave and how incidents are dealt with in the future. Of course it isn't possible for him to be at the premises 24/7 and so he undertakes in addition to himself and his designated premises supervisor to train up and qualify two additional personal license holders and as I say moving forward it would be a requirement for the premises to have at least one of those on staff and on rota from 9pm every night. In addition to that every night day or night that the premises is open two door staff will be deployed that's 100% increase for the majority of evenings apart from Friday and Saturday which currently requires two but the proposal would be that two attend every night, one deployed at 9pm and the second to be deployed at 10pm except Fridays where I think both are required to be on at 9pm anyway so that would be the current requirement to remain. Whilst it's accepted that it already is a condition for nucleated anti splinter glass to be used at all times the committee may not feel the need to add that again and duplicate an existing condition but the proposal is and as you've heard that all glassware now has been removed from the premises and only this toughened safety glass will be exclusively used at the premises. In addition all bottles are to be decanted into plastic throw away cups and I'll simply make the point in relation to the 23rd of May incident on the CCTV the committee members may note that that was being done. I appreciate there was at least one other glass that was available but certainly bottles were being decanted and are being decanted into plastic throw away cups. In addition to that and given that reference has been made on more than one occasion to Knives Mr. Edwards would be agreeable to a further condition of the implementation of a search policy in respect of customers entering the premises. Now I assume that would have to be in relation to males only and the bags or handbags of females because unless there's a female member of door staff working they will not be able to physically search pat down women but they can certainly pat down men, they can certainly search females bags with a physical pat down and also with an electronic wand. I'm told that door staff do do that anyway but it isn't a condition of the license so it may be that the committee feel that that condition would be appropriately added to the premises. So subject to further submissions that I'll leave until the end in relation to Mr. Edwards and the summary of Mr. Edwards position. Those are the representations in respect of the premises license holder unless there are any questions. Okay thank you. Any questions? I'll take them in. Councillor Maloney. Thank you. Could you tell me, is the front of the bar, is that the only smoking area that you have? You've got nothing round the back or anything? No, people have to have a cigarette on the front. On the main road? Under the canopy of the bar. On the front of the bar is the CCTV there's no smoking area, you have to rear them. You want to have a smoke you have to come out the front door and smoke where? If it is says Councillor that I was there this morning that there is no rear of the premises there's a narrow alleyway and a refuse collection point so it wouldn't be appropriate to have customers smoke in any other place than where they are. Right thank you. Can I also ask you, do you do anything with pub watch in St. Helens? Yeah I attend all pub watch meetings yeah. I do yeah. It's a condition on my licence I think but I do attend them anyway. It's a condition on my licence isn't it Chris? Yeah I attend all the pub watch meetings yeah. Okay Councillor Carr. Thank you chair. I've got two questions and a clarification if that's okay Mr. Barmer. Thank you. My first one is you mentioned we could have a copy of the training program you said it was available have you got a copy? I don't. It was handed to PC Ireland at Mr. Edwards meeting on Monday. Unfortunately copies weren't able to be made. Okay I can have a look at that. Thank you. And the second thing was you've made a couple of references to the fact that Mr. Edwards requested the meeting with the police. Can I ask on what basis that request was made? What was the specific reason for it? Yes certainly if I can just it is referenced in Mr. Kenny's bundle just bear with me a second. It was in relation to an incident that had been reported to Mr. Edwards on the 9th of April where it was alleged that by an officer that he tried to effect an arrest of somebody in the premises and members of the public and the staff hadn't been let's say altogether cooperative. That report as far as Mr. Edwards was concerned was false and he wanted to set the record straight with the police and I think to be fair to Inspector Griffiths he confirmed that there were discrepancies with the police's report and what was shown on CCTV by Mr. Edwards. Thank you for that and the clarification if I may. You mentioned about the knife incident and two weeks previously the person had carried a knife but not on the night of the 1st of April. I'm simply going off what the incident log says on the 1st of April and I've just quoted directly from what's been recorded on that incident. The log initially states that there is intel that there may be some people in Maloney's with knives and then further on it says a week or two ago male had knife in waistband and then further down it says confirmed no knife was seen tonight. So it's unclear as to whether what's been suggested is that person had a knife on him on that evening or whether he was someone who was identified as being in the premises who had had a knife previously. That's what I'm asking. Did Maloney's know that this person carried a knife two weeks earlier? The police knew but the Maloney's never. Thank you. When that was brought to our attention I did ask the council did they want to see CCTV because we didn't know who the male was. We never got described but we just got told there might have been a male in the premises carrying a knife. So when I was asked I don't know whether it was the police or the council I said can you have a description. They didn't have a description themselves which is in the log. I said I can supply CCTV of all the 16 cameras but I don't know what I'm looking for but that request was never. Thank you. The point I was trying to make was was there a pattern of someone carrying a knife that Maloney's knew about and you're telling me that that's not the case. We didn't know about either. Okay thank you. Thank you Chair. Okay thank you. Just a few from me actually. I think you have always admitted that training has been a bit on the lawful side in the past. I think you would agree with that considering what you said in this meeting. That's obviously one of the comments of the committee at the last hearing not only was the training wasn't up to code if that's the right expression but also that you shouldn't need training to know to call the police. That has to be right. I'll simply make the point on behalf of Mr. Edwards that short of being present himself at the premises on each night other than train your staff up it's difficult to be able to legislate for how they're going to act in such a situation but the training has been improved. There is a manual there to evidence that I'm sure PC Ireland will correct me if she disagrees that it is a vast improvement on what has gone before. Okay can I just ask then obviously there has been a lack of training in the past but just opinion. I was just wondering you've got a manual which is now you said is extra training. In the past who gives that training to staff and in the future who's going to give that training to staff? Yeah the DPS gives the training they have had training but we've extended the training for a bit more because of the incident that happened on the 23rd so they do sign to say that they've had training that what they're supposed to do obviously the staff member on site has not done what she's supposed to do from her training due to panic or whatever it was because of the incident so we try and make the training a little bit more. So before the 23rd of May did you or did the DPS deliver that training? Yeah sorry yeah every six months the DPS would give staff training and if a new staff member come on they would be the staff they'd get staff trained and then sign to say that they understood what the staff training involved. They'd sign their name to say yes I've read it and they understand it. And I think sorry so moving forward from now who will deliver that training will it be the DPS again? The DPS yeah. Okay can I ask about your door staff? Now your door staff you said is an outside body it's not your door staff it's an outside organisation do you know who gives them training again because it didn't look as though they were well trained in the video we saw there? Yeah I don't know if I've certainly sought to address those concerns in the written representations if I just find the paragraph for you sir the company involved is Radius UK yeah it's a paragraph 10 so Radius UK they are a well established company they do have over 50 years experience in the industry with over 600 members of staff the company is ISO 9001 certified and also accredited of course it has to be accepted that certainly on the 23rd of May one member of staff did nothing and let's be clear Mr Edwards is annoyed and concerned as I hope the members of the committee and the police are but you will have hopefully picked up that this isn't the first door company that Mr Edwards has employed there was a company employed in 2002 a different company so there's no loyalty necessarily to Radius UK Limited this isn't a situation where he's blindly faithful to a particular company okay alright do you want to just clarify that Mr Barmah because you said 2002 and the premises only opened in 2015? 2022 sorry the incident yes sorry the incident in 2022 just so it's clear for the committee okay thank you very much just another question can I also for Mr Edwards as well can I ask what your understanding of your responsibilities are as a premises license order what do you understand to be your job? it's my job to make sure that the staff are doing what they're supposed to be trained to do as well as to make sure that the door supervisor company I organize with them to tell the doorman you know if there's any problems it's my responsibility for the premises I have to put emphasis on an internal company to deal with me door staff because they deal with it I train me staff and I can only I train them the scientists say they've been trained they know what to do on that incident that happened she didn't do her training she didn't follow what she was supposed to be done and scientists say that she would do and I think that's because she panicked and it was a bad incident and she just went to pieces that's I can't you'd have to speak to her but that's she didn't follow her training so that's all I can say sorry I don't know if that answered it just very lastly Is there anybody else who's actually has involvement in the management of the premises only the DPS the Demi Murphy she's the DPS okay all right thank you okay is everybody else okay yeah right okay well we're coming round to the summons now are we yeah the summing up so it is up to yourself but I suggest that we have maybe half hours break trying to get some lunch if that's possible I think should we just do the summing up [Inaudible] [Inaudible] [Inaudible] [Inaudible] Okay we'll carry on with the summing up so if you start to sum up okay Unless you want a break before summing up it happens yeah it's just so we can let you go before we break for deliberations I'm grateful for that thank you yeah thank you just to sum up then and I'm grateful for the committee's time in listening to to this matter Mr Edwards has ran operated premises licensed premises in the Centelland area for ten years this is the first incident of serious crime and disorder in a number of years and I would submit on his behalf that it's unreasonable and unfair to revoke or indeed to continue to suspend the license moving forward a number of incidents have been referred to since December of 2023 I'll make the point again that that represents 2.3% of the total incidents that have been recorded by the police in the D11 district and of those 17 some were incidents that were reported by door staff and members of the management of the venue and not all of those were crime and disorder let alone serious crime and disorder a number of those incidents most notably the one on the 23rd of May has it's been conceded were not preventable were simply unable to be prevented Mr Edwards and submit has acted promptly and swiftly in relation to his actions in relation to the training in relation to removing the member of staff who was on duty at the time and his discussions and engagements with his external door company to have door staff removed as and when it is appropriate again I would highlight to the committee paragraph 1120 of section 182 guidance which requires the committee to use measures that are no more than appropriate and proportionate responses to address the concerns that have instigated the review. It does seem that with respect to these premises it isn't the prevention of future instances of crime and disorder it's how they deal with incidents when they occur and the main criticism it seems to me that's levelled at Mr Edwards is that him and his staff should be more proactive when an incident does occur. There are measures that have been put in place and will be put in place the presence of management on each night from 9 p.m. I would respectably submit is a good measure is a good step forward and a good starting point and that really the committee should not be approaching this hearing as starting point of revoking the license and working backwards but whether or not conditions can appropriately address the licensing conditions licensing objectives sorry and if not then moving to varying degrees of severity. It's been said that there have been numerous instances where the licensing authority have engaged and voiced their concerns with Mr Edwards with the greatest respect that that simply isn't born out in the evidence that you've been provided with today a meeting on the 8th of February of 2023 a meeting then on the 14th of May of 2024 which was at Mr Edwards instigation really flies in the face of the suggestion that these incidents have led to a build up or a critical mass whereby the committee and the police and the licensing authority now have no options but to revoke the premises. There has been with the greatest of respect little to no engagement prior to May of this year and really we've gone from 0 to 100 there haven't been any meetings there haven't been any conversations or discussions. Look Peter try doing this what have you done this why you know no action plan has been put in place in respect to the premises unfortunately we've reached a situation where we've gone from nothing happening at all to simply asking now for the license to be revoked and it's unfortunate that St Helens town centre like I'm sure many town and city centres up and down the country will inevitably have problems with drunk people people under the influence of drugs and things of that nature which I'm afraid will never be able to eradicate 100% but what's important to note is that Mr Edwards cooperates with the authorities when required he provides CCTV when needed and I'm sure if there were to be regular meetings weekly monthly quarterly meetings with the police and licensing authority Mr Edwards will be there every time. So on that basis those are my submissions thank you very much unless there are any follow up questions or anything like that. Ok Chris I think he serves to sum up now. Thank you chair. As a point of clarity Mr Barmus said that we hadn't met prior to the 14th of May 2024 and I think he referenced the 8th of February 2023 it was the 8th of February 2024 we met and that was while the bar was shut correct and that was just a week before you reopened as Maloney's so it's not correct what Mr Barmus just said it was a meeting yeah so the licensing authorities submit that Maloney's have seriously undermined the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder. Maloney's has become a venue for frequent crime and disorder that can happen on any day of the week. These premises have failed in their legal responsibilities and they have failed to promote the licensing objectives which they are legally required to do. These premises have had an enormously negative impact on St. Alan's town centre and would likely continue to do so unless firm action is taken here today. Early intervention and multi-agency meetings have not worked and neither has amending any conditions on the licence. Professionally provided training to key members of staff appears not to have worked either. Management and the staff at Maloney's now appears to have adopted a level of acceptance that serious crime and disorder will occur. Adding further conditions to a licence can only work if they are understood and able to be implemented. Adding further conditions to the Maloney's licence would not I believe work. Again forgive me The document that's been referred to here is this is the proposed training document or is it the training document that has been provided via an email with relevant documentation from the 17th of June. There seems to be a little bit of confusion. Apologies for that. That was what was submitted on behalf of Mr. Edwards. However when I've looked through these documents they appear to be template training documents. I don't know if this is a before and after scenario but they appear to be signed off by the DPS for the date of February 2024 provided with a signature of a D. Murphy. If D. Murphy is Demi Murphy she's only been the DPS since the 5th of March 2024 so why she's backdating it I don't know. The documentation that I've been forwarded through email refers to a capacity of the premises of
3. The premises can not, doesn't have a capacity of 499. The last temporary event that was this was submitted by these premises in March of 2024 gave a capacity of 199. Again looking through the documentation that has been forwarded through email there's a section titled and this is the training program which we believe is going to improve matters or is suggested could improve matters at Maloney's which I don't believe it can. In house rules which is at section A14 the breeze bar is referred to at point 9. The breeze bar is not a licensed premises. There is a section titled spotting potential trouble at A2022 and this starts with the words kingdom operates a zero tolerance policy. Kingdom is a completely separate licensed premises to Maloney's. And then there's a section that's serving intoxicating liquor at A19 and on the second point it states here that draft beer must be served in a government stamped glass or tankard. So these documents are generic, quite irrelevant, they don't even relate to Maloney's and this is what has been put together in the period of time from the premises license being suspended to now and it's nothing. Sorry that's not correct. If I can come back on a couple of points because that's wrong. It's just meant to be summing up isn't it at this point. Well let Chris finish. You can put what you're going to say to the chairman and the chair can make a decision on that. Is that OK? Just get the summing up done. So existing conditions have already been breached. It's always been a condition that these premises have nucleated, toughened, non-splintering, shatterproof glass and this condition has been breached resulting in horrifying injuries that we have seen. The management and the staff at Maloney's including the door staff have proven to be totally ineffective. The events of the 23rd of May 2024 should not be considered as isolated flashpoints. They were a build up of events and for the staff at the premises not to immediately contact the police or an ambulance and it had to be relied upon for a member of the public to flag a passing police vehicle down sometime after the incident is totally unacceptable and demonstrates serious failures in the management of these premises. I have received over 20 reports forwarded to me since these premises reopened in mid February of this year. The licensing objectives need to be promoted and the public need to be protected. The decision taken here by you members today is crucial. The interim steps taken to suspend Maloney's license were appropriate to promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime disorder and I would submit that they remain appropriate. So in light of the evidence provided and to prevent further crime and disorder to protect the public and the people who visit and work in our night time economy I believe respectfully submit that the revocation of the Maloney's premises license is an appropriate action for you members to take here today. Thank you. Ok thank you. Michael would you like to comment? Yes apologies. Can I just if I can just find it. The reference to the 8th of February 2023 2024 I took it from an email from Mr. Kenny at page 45 of his bundle that says further to the meeting held on the Thursday the 8th of February 2023 so that that's where that came from. In relation to the training the material that was emailed previous to today was the existing training policy that had been signed by that member of staff who was on duty on the 23rd of May. The physical hard copy bundle that the committee now has is what's proposed moving forward. So if I can clarify those two points. Ok. Would you like to come back on that. I believe that 2023 is referenced in the body of the email however the email was sent in February 2024 so it's just a typo on that. And thank you for the clarification of its previous training and now proposed. Ok thank you. Ok we're fine. Moving on then I'll return to the police to sum up. Thank you. So Maeseside Police are extremely concerned around the serious violence in and around Maloney's at the moment. This isn't the first incident of serious violence that has resulted in serious injury to members of the public and there have been repeated failures around reporting issues to the police obtaining medical assistance as and when required and failing to uphold that crucial licensing objective of prevention of crime and disorder. We will concede that the incident from the 23rd of May is probably the most severe incident that the premises has suffered but we do not believe it to be as asserted by Mr Ed was as isolated. We are concerned about this relatively rapid escalation in incidents since the premises has reopened as Maloney's but I would like to point out at this point as it has been laboured Maeseside Licensing Unit and St Helens Council Licensing Unit are not the only people who attend at Maloney's in order to provide support to the premises. Mr Griffiths staff within the night time economy will often attend at the premises in order to complete walk throughs so whilst it is being asserted that there hasn't been any other visits or reports or concerns over the last 12 months Maloney's has noted 35 incidents where the contact has been made or police officers or council officers have attended in the premises and 20 of them are from February onwards and as already confirmed and agreed by Mr Edwards we had a licensing meeting with him prior to the opening of Maloney's and we did have one at his request on the 14th where we did raise our concerns about the escalating issues at the premises. I am very grateful for your time and your consideration today but it is a result of all of these issues that we now find ourselves at your door because we do believe that support has been provided at this premises. So thank you for the opportunity to sum up. Thank you very much indeed, thank you. It's normally at this point now somebody puts a motion forward to deliberating private can somebody put that move forward. Can I put forward with deliberating private now please. I assume it's seconded yeah okay. Just for the record then all those in favour please show. Okay thank you.