Secret licensing panel hearing ends in farce

A licensing panel that excluded the press and public ended in farce when council bosses were forced to admit that the hearing should never have been held.

Brighton and Hove City Council told the owner of Zaf’ron, in North Road, Brighton, that his late-night refreshment licence had been suspended – but the council and police misapplied the law.

They have since contacted Zaf’ron owner Norulah Habibi, 41, to tell him that the suspension has been lifted and that he can keep trading.

Mr Habibi was hauled before councillors when Sussex Police applied for a “summary review” after a neighbour went into the restaurant and smashed the place up and attacked staff – two days running.

The man, who said that he needed to be admitted to Mill View, the psychiatric hospital, in Hove, smashed up the premises and punched staff.

He told them: “God told me to do it. He said he’s going to kill all these fuckers anyway.”

Sussex Police previously said that officers were called to the premises on Friday 1 August at 2.30am to a report that someone had caused criminal damage and assaulted a member of staff.

The force said that officers had spoken to a 63-year-old man, from Brighton, at the scene and agreed a community resolution, requiring him to pay for the damage.

The man returned the next day and caused even more damage and attacked staff again. He was left needing hospital treatment after staff defended themselves and the premises.

The police then applied to the council for a summary review, claiming that the premises were “associated with serious crime” – and they sought an interim suspension of the licence.

The application was signed off by an unnamed superintendent – but the application and the senior officer’s name were withheld from the licensing panel meeting papers on Monday (11 August).

A report to the licensing panel said: “The licensing authority considered whether it is necessary to take interim steps pending the determination of the review applied for.

“The licensing authority decision was to suspend the licence with immediate effect.”

The interim suspension was granted by the council without any press or public being notified, let alone present.

The council added: “The premises licence holder made a representation to the licensing authority against the interim step decision which has resulted in this hearing being arranged.”

But the rules governing this process apply only to a licence to sell alcohol. Mr Habibi objected to the suspension of his late-night refreshment licence, permitting him to trade after 11pm until 3am. He does not have a licence to sell alcohol.

The rules are set out in the Licensing Act 2003 and apply only to serious crime such as violence involving guns, knives or serious injury – or drug dealing as was recently alleged to have been happening at E39, in Western Road, Hove.

The licensing panel on Monday went into confidential session because it was due to hear about an “active criminal investigation”.

Licensing panels act in a quasi-judicial capacity and are subject to the rules governing open justice, requiring evidence to be heard in public.

Even the law governing council meetings in public requires that only those matters that absolutely have to be held in secret should be.

Brighton and Hove News asked Sussex Police whether anyone had been arrested in connection with a suspected offence linked to the premises and remained under investigation but no reply was received by the time of publication.

And more than 36 hours after the meeting, Brighton and Hove City Council has yet to publish the outcome of a decision that could have forced a business to close with the loss of several people’s jobs.

A council source said late yesterday (Tuesday 12 August) that the council had overturned the licensing panel decision – again in secret after urgent discussions behind the scenes.

The source said that Alex Evans, the licensing team leader, had emailed Mr Habibi, saying: “I am writing to provide an urgent update regarding the recent suspension of your premises licence for Zaf’ron.

“Following further legal advice, it has come to light that the summary review application submitted by Sussex Police was procedurally flawed.

“Specifically, the powers under sections 53A to 53C of the Licensing Act 2003 apply only to premises licences that authorise the sale of alcohol.

“It now appears that your current licence does not include authorisation for alcohol sales and therefore the summary review process should not have been initiated.

“We sincerely regret that this issue was not identified earlier and acknowledge the impact this may have had on your business.

“As a result, we are taking the following immediate actions

• The suspension of your premises licence is being removed with immediate effect.
• You are now permitted to resume trading without restriction.
• The current summary review process is being cancelled.

“We understand that this situation may have caused disruption and concern and we are very sorry for any inconvenience caused.”

One former member of the council Licensing Committee said that more could be done to help those running hospitality businesses, including venues selling food and drink, to comply with the licensing laws.

The former councillor said that many takeaways were run by people who had come from overseas and did not always understand the fine detail of laws that even experienced lawyers argued about.

And in one of the key rulings on open justice in courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial proceedings, Lord Justice Toulson said that, in a democracy, the legal process must be transparent.

He said: “Open justice lets in the light and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law.”

He also quoted Lord Shaw, a 19th century law lord, who said in a similar ruling: “Publicity is the very soul of justice … and the surest of all guards against improbity.”

Lord Toulson added: “This is a constitutional principle which has been recognised by the common law since the fall of the Stuart dynasty.”

And he said: “The requirements of open justice apply to all tribunals exercising the judicial power of the state.”

Given that the council is led by a human rights lawyer, it would be a positive sign if, at the very least, the Licensing Committee could look at ways to prevent its application of the law from descending into farce in future.