Sussex Police urged councillors to uphold a decision to suspend a restaurant’s late-night refreshment licence at a secret hearing this afternoon (Monday 11 August).
The force had already obtained an immediate suspension last week after a fight at Zaf’ron, in North Road, Brighton.
The owner appealed against the “interim” decision and today a Brighton and Hove City Council licensing panel sat in secret to decide whether to lift the suspension or keep it in place.
The secret sitting followed a “summary review application” from Sussex Police last Tuesday (5 August) claiming that the premises were “associated with serious crime”.
Home Office guidance said that, under the Licensing Act 2003, serious crime or disorder would typically, though not exclusively, mean violence involving guns or knives.
The application was considered the next day also in secret.
The council 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.”
A day later, last Thursday (7 August), the restaurant owner appealed. The council said: “The premises licence holder made a representation to the licensing authority against the interim step decision which has resulted in this hearing being arranged.”
The panel today consisted of three Labour councillors – Julie Cattell, Sam Parrott and Alison Thomson.
The hearing was also attended by Zaf’ron Ltd owner Norulah Habibi, 41, of Chelwood Close, Brighton, representatives of Sussex Police and the council licensing team.
Councillor Cattell, who chaired the meeting, said that it was being held in closed session because there was an active criminal investigation.
Sussex Police 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.
Sussex Police said that officers spoke 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 their workplace.
Zaf’ron does not sell alcohol but does have a “late-night refreshment” licence to sell food and hot and cold drinks after 11pm.
The business was granted the licence last year, permitting it to stay open until 3am for takeaway and delivery customers only.
Section 53A (1) (a) of the Licensing Act 2003 and the associated Home Office guidance say that the summary review procedure is only intended to cover a premises with a licence to sell alcohol.
The panel’s decision is yet to be made public.
If they won’t play by the rules then shut them down, about time someone took control, across the board
How are they not playing by the rules? This didn’t happen at a time when the business wasn’t allowed to be open and serving food.
It’s hardly a secret meeting when you’ve reported on it in detail, it’s listed on the councils website and the council has released an official statement about it!
It looks like there were two meetings, one yesterday. The public weren’t allowed in to either of them.
My dictionary says secret (adjective) not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others.
The meetings were not seen. It sounds like a perfectly fair description to me.
“not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others.”
Except as I’ve already said yesterdays meeting was listed on the councils meeting schedule and a statement released by the council – So definitely known about!
It’s interesting that there’s some debate about the definition of serious crime. The article informs the reader that it typically means “violence involving guns or knives”. That might be so but I would like to add into the mix that drug dealing on a significant scale, particularly when we are talking about the huge Class A industry in Brighton and Hove, would also be categorised as serious crime. I should add that I have no information about what alleged serious crime was associated with these premises.
I pulled this for context.
For the purposes of the Licensing Act 2003 summary review process (s.53A), the statutory definition of “serious crime” is taken from section 81(2)(b) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).
Under that definition, a “serious crime” means:
An offence for which a person aged 21 or over with no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to receive a sentence of three years’ imprisonment or more; or
An offence involving the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain, or is conduct by a large number of people in pursuit of a common purpose.
The Home Office Guidance on Summary Reviews then gives examples of the kinds of offences that typically meet this threshold in the licensing context, such as:
Violence involving firearms or knives
Large-scale Class A drug trafficking or supply
Serious sexual offences
Organised crime
Significant fraud
Take away there late license, those whom wish to go there have had a skinful by then anyway.
Some Restaurant owners seem out of control in the City. Not only do we have some serious criminality, we see regular reports of flouting of planning rules and failure of the owners to comply with rules. Restaurants in Church Rd Hove, Preston St and in Patcham have so far failed to address and remove objectionable additions to the buildings they occupy. We hope to see the council stepping hard on this.
Don’t hold your breath