Decision Maker: Licensing Review Sub-Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: May 27, 2025

Purpose:

Content: Applications for Review of two Premises Licences in respect of (i)          Woolwich Snooker Club (formerly known as Hustlers Snooker Club & Sports Bar), 1st Floor, 2-10 Hare Street, Woolwich, SE18 6LZ, and (ii)        the Multi-Use Events Venue within Woolwich Snooker Club, 1st Floor, 2-10 Hare Street, Woolwich, SE18 6LZ     FULL DECISION   The Sub-Committee has determined two applications for review of two existing Premises Licences under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). Both applications were made in respect of Woolwich Snooker Club (formerly known as Hustlers Snooker Club & Sports Bar), 1st Floor, 2-10 Hare Street, Woolwich, SE18 6LZ (“The Premises”), which holds two licences for different areas of the venue. The First Licence relates to the Woolwich Snooker Club itself, and the designated premises supervisor is Mr Tacim Yavuz. The First Licence was granted to Hustlers Snooker Club Ltd, of which Mr Yavuz is the sole director, and which is the Premises Licence Holder. The Second Licence relates to a Multi-Use Events Venue in a different area within the same premises, and the designated premises supervisor is Mr Bahattin Huseyin Dag while Mr Yavuz is the Premises Licence Holder.  Mr Dadds represented both Mr Yavuz and the company at the meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee. Mr Yavuz was not present.   At the start of the hearing, the Sub-Committee decided to hear the submissions on both applications together since they related to the same Premises and similar facts, had the same representatives, and there would be a large amount of cross-over in submissions. The Sub-Committee were mindful that the applications should be considered and determined separately, each on their own merits.   The applications for review were brought by PC Mindaugas Alsauskas for and on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, a Responsible Authority pursuant to the Licensing Act 2003. The applications are made on grounds relating to the licensing objectives for the Prevention of Crime & Disorder and Public Safety.   There were two representations in support of the applications to review: those set out by PC Alsauskas on behalf of the police relating to an incident on 2 February 2025 when Mr Yavuz can be seen punching a member of the public who had been involved in a fight with a customer, and then kicking another member of the public, following which the police note breaches of the licence in not providing or being able to provide copies of the CCTV to police (see further below);  and from Ms Ishwak Ahmed on behalf of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Public Health team who submitted that public health supported the application for a review in view of the CCTV of the incident and also due to the significant sustained breaches of the current Licensing conditions, which are conditions 4 and 7 of the Woolwich Snooker Club licence, and conditions 2 and 5 of the Multi-Use Events Venue Licence and provide as follows: 2/4. “A fully operational CCTV system shall be provided throughout all public parts of the premises. Recordings shall be kept for a period of at least thirty-one (31) days and made available to Police and Council officers on request.” 5/7. “Staff shall be fully trained in the operation of the CCTV system and there shall be at least one person on duty during trading hours who is able to provide a recording of any incident at the request of the Police and/or Licensing authority.”   The history of Mr Yavuz’s supervision of the Premises in relation to the First Licence (Woolwich Snooker Club) includes that on 2 April 2023 Officers from the Community Protection (Noise) Team attended the premises and met with Mr Yavuz after finding customers being admitted at the rear in Creton Street, who were not snooker club members, in contravention of the terms of the licence. On 29 April 2023 a report was received from the supervisor of RBG’s CCTV Digital Evidence Team of a gathering of 200-300 people to the rear of the premises on Creton Street which resulted in frrequent nighttime visits by licensing officers. No further incidents were recorded and those visits ceased in August 2023.   On 14 June 2023 (again in relation to the First Licence) PC Sam Bobb of Greenwich Police Licensing had occasion to visit the premises to assist a police colleague who had experienced difficulties in obtaining CCTV footage from Mr Yavuz following an incident of assault occasioning actual bodily harm at the premises in April 2023. PC Bobb was concerned that multiple conditions of the licence had been breached. On 26 June 2023, PC Bobb held a meeting with Mr Yavuz at the premises to discuss the breaches, the outcome of which was satisfactory.   The Sub-Committee heard the report from the licensing officer Mr Cox and viewed the CCTV in public. They then heard from Ms Bruce-Smith on behalf of the police, who submitted that the police do not have confidence that Mr Yavuz can uphold the licensing objectives given his conduct on 2 February 2025 when he can be seen to punch a member of the public seemingly unprompted, and then kick another individual. This shows, she argued, that he is not a responsible Premises Licence Holder or Designated Premises Supervisor, and he escalated the situation rather than deescalating it. The only reason the matter resulted in no further action was the victim’s unwillingness to cooperate. Further, he had no concern for the welfare of the man he punched who was apparently unconscious, and this raises concerns about his ability to uphold public safety. She added that although these are two separate applications, Mr Yavuz is (effectively) the premises licence holder in respect of both and therefore it is justified to revoke both licences. She added finally that the failure to supply CCTV was a breach of the conditions of the licence which are there to enable effective investigation by police, and was therefore a serious breach.   Councillor Cousins asked whether the CCTV had ever been provided, which it had not. The police were not able to confirm whether the CCTV from the 2023 incident had ever been provided.   Councillor Ayodele asked about correspondence between the police and Mr Yavuz relating to the CCTV of the 2 February 2025 incident and it was clarified that there was a meeting and a request made, following which it was not supplied.   Cllr McGahey asked about whether the snooker club customers use the back door and go through the multi-use events space to access the club even when it’s not open, and the police said they were not aware one way or the other. Mr Cox also could not confirm.   On behalf of public health Ms Ahmed said that the licensing objectives were undermined by this incident, they have substantial concerns and do not have confidence in Mr Yavuz, and therefore, they support the police’s application.   Mr Dadds submitted that the police should not have accused the licence holder of a crime in this meeting, and they inaccurately say that the male lies motionless but that is not correct upon a careful viewing of the footage. The letter from the Metropolitan Police says the matter has been fully investigated and the decision to take no further action was made, which shows there was no crime, yet this is omitted from the public application. He further submitted that the Premises Licence Holder called the police immediately, before he was threatened by the individual and thought he was going to be attacked, to which he reacted. Mr Dadds emphasised that the principle of innocent until proven guilty is of critical importance, and there are no findings of fact against Mr Yavuz.   Mr Dadds explained that the incident began because three individuals who weren’t members of the Snooker club wanted to come in, but were asked to leave. They then came in again with another customer and were asked to leave again. A third time a customer came in and the group of three tried to come in, which led to an altercation which caused the Premises Licence Holder to come down. He called 999 once outside as the fight continued. He was threatened with a knife and he reacted in self-defence, which is what he told police. Officers saw the CCTV from the entrance to the premises on the night, and they had their body worn video on so must have recorded it. Licensing officers attended later in the week and were also able to view it, unfortunately it was not downloadable despite a substantial sum spent to try to recover the CCTV: it was not deliberate evasion of the licence terms which meant that the CCTV had not been provided and instead Mr Yavuz did all he could to provide it.   On the Multi-Use Events Venue, it was neither open nor operational on the day in question. Mr Dadds also noted that none of the previous incidents in 2023 related to the use of that licence.   Looking forward, the Premises now operates licensing connect to train its staff, and going forward it has updated its CCTV capabilities so that staff can download footage onto their phones. New CCTV cameras have also been installed at the entry/exit points of the Premises.     Councillor Ayodele asked about a receipt provided on behalf of Mr Yavuz which Mr Dadds said was payment for the attempts by CMS electronics to recover the CCTV, which was not possible. He also asked about the training now provided to staff and Mr Dadds showed the Sub-Committee the “licensing connect” licensing course and the “WAVE” training on welfare and vulnerability which staff now undertake.   Councillor McGahey asked the police (i) whether the licence holder had called the police, (ii) whether officers viewed the internal CCTV and whether they had concerns about what they saw, and (iii) whether they still felt after hearing the representations made that Mr Yavuz was not able to uphold the licence. The police representative responded by saying that the task was not to determine whether Mr Yavuz committed an offence. Mr Yavuz did call 999 and another 999 call was made by a friend of the victim, both were about the same time around 00.35/00:36 and it was hard to tell whether these were before or after the CCTV licensing officer contacted police. Officers who attended the incident did not report concerns with the CCTV but police remained concerned that it wasn’t provided on request, and police continue not to have confidence in Mr Yavuz.   Councillor Cousins asked Mr Dadds about the sequence which led to Mr Yavuz punching a member of the public. Mr Dadds then said that it was upon this individual’s second attempt to enter the club when Mr Yavuz attended to ask him to leave. She then asked whether Mr Yavuz could have responded differently to the incident, to which he responded that Mr Yavuz intervened to protect a customer. Finally, Councillor Cousins asked the police why the criminal proceedings concluded, and the police clarified that it was investigated as far as possible but the victim didn’t want to cooperate so that was as far as it could go.   The Sub-Committee were mindful that the only representations they can consider under the Licensing Act 2003 are those which are relevant to the licensing objectives in relation to the sale of alcohol, namely: i.              Prevention of Crime & Disorder ii.            Prevention of Public Nuisance iii.           Public Safety iv.           Protection of Children from Harm.   Pursuant to Section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003, upon a review of a licence it is open to the Sub- Committee to: •        Modify the conditions of the premises licence; •        Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the premises licence; •        Remove the existing Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS); •        Suspend the premises licence for a period not exceeding three months; •        Revoke the premises licence.   The premises are located within the Woolwich town centre Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) as prescribed by the current Royal Borough of Greenwich Licensing Policy. However, for purposes of review proceedings, consideration of a CIZ is not applicable in any event. Therefore the policies and Guidance which apply are the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s licensing policy and the Government Guidance, and the applications must be considered on their individual merits.   The Sub-Committee were reminded that as stated in the Government Guidance and under section 182 of the Act, the police should be the licensing authority’s main source of advice on crime and disorder. Furthermore, the Sub-Committee were careful to note that their role was not to assign criminal liability or blame but to ensure the licensing objectives were upheld.   The Sub-Committee found that the police’s concerns were serious and instructive, and noted that the police sought revocation of both licences rather than any other available outcome. The Sub-Committee considered Mr Dadds’ submissions regarding what in fact happened during the incident on 2 February 2025 but took the view that Mr Yavuz’ actions escalated rather than deescalated the level of violence in the situation, did represent violent behaviour, and they found it important that the force of the punch was such that it appeared to render a member of the public unconscious. The Sub-Committee found that this did undermine the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder and ensuring public safety and did affect Mr Yavuz’ suitability as a premises licence holder and designated premises supervisor.   The Sub-Committee accepted that the CCTV was not recoverable, however they were concerned that the CCTV available at the time on the premises, which appeared to be one system for the whole premises (and therefore applied to both licences), did not appear to be sufficiently operational to comply with the licence conditions of both licences in that the CCTV could not be downloaded and provided to police. This was serious because obtaining CCTV is an important part of preventing crime and disorder by ensuring the police are able to do their job. The Sub-Committee were very concerned that the retrospective action taken to address the CCTV inadequacies, while welcome, suggests that there was not comprehensive and rigorous adherence to the licence conditions before this incident.   The Sub-Committee therefore allowed the application to review both licences.   On the First Licence, the Sub-Committee took a decision which was finely balanced not to revoke the licence, given the above and in particular noting concerns over Mr Yavuz’ suitability to be the designated premises supervisor and the police’s lack of confidence in him to uphold the licensing objectives and comply with important conditions, which the premises licence holder should take very seriously.   The Sub-Committee determined that, by a narrow margin, it was more appropriate, proportionate, and would have the effect of promoting the licensing objectives to: (i)           remove Mr Yavuz as the designated premises supervisor, (ii)          suspend the premises licence for a period of 6 weeks, and (iii)        modify the licence conditions so that condition 7 now reads as follows: “Staff shall be fully trained in the operation of the CCTV system and a training log shall be kept which is updated every six months, and there shall be at least one person on duty during trading hours who is able to provide a recording of any incident at the request of the Police and/or Licensing authority. Staff shall check that the CCTV is in good working order on a quarterly basis and a record of those checks will be kept at the Premises.”   In respect of the Second Licence, the Sub-Committee noted that Mr Yavuz was not the designated premises supervisor and that the venue was not open or operational on the day of the incident. However, concerns about Mr Yavuz’s suitability to be the Premises Licence Holder and particularly regarding the CCTV and staff training remained, given that it related to the same building and licence holder. Therefore, the Sub-Committee resolved to make the same amendments to the licence conditions as for the first licence, which also kept a degree of parity between the two licences for the premises. As such, the Sub-Committee decided: (i)           To modify the licence conditions so that condition 5 now reads as follows: “Staff shall be fully trained in the operation of the CCTV system and a training log shall be kept which is updated every six months, and there shall be at least one person on duty during trading hours who is able to provide a recording of any incident at the request of the Police and/or Licensing authority. Staff shall check that the CCTV is in good working order on a quarterly basis and a record of those checks will be kept at the Premises.”     This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee.