Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest, identified in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine: whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are also reminded to declare the nature of the interest at the earliest opportunity and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it is the Members’ responsibility to identify any interests and also update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of an interest, you are advised to seek advice prior the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services.

There were no declarations of interest.

To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information.

The rules of procedure as set out in the agenda pack were noted.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on ……………..

The minutes of the meeting were agreed and approved as a correct record. 

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of public nuisance and

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

Representation:

·       Metropolitan Police

Ward: Bow East

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Wicked Fish, Queens Yard White Post Lane London E9 5EN (“the Premises”) for a variation of its licensable hours for Late Night Refreshment. Representations on this application had been received from the Police and the Licensing Authority.

The Sub-Committee considered at the same time an application by PC Mark Perry on behalf of the Metropolitan Police for the review of the premises licence held by Wicked Fish, Queens Yard White Post Lane London E9 5EN (“the Premises”). The application followed police analysis of CCTV at the premises over the course of several weeks in early 2023 identifying alleged breaches of licence conditions. The application was supported by the Licensing Authority.

All parties present confirmed they no objections to both items being heard together.

The Sub-Committee then heard representations from

• PC Mark Perry, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.
• Moshin Ali, Licensing Officer, on behalf of the Licensing Authority.
• Michal Gaiser (Applicant), James Rankin, (Barrister) and Adrian Studd on behalf of the Premises licence holder.

.

Mr Rankin who was representing his client made his submission to the sub-committee, this was a  High end late night premises.  The applicant was originally unaware of the licensing requirements. and has applied for variations of the licence several times with no objections. The applicant was confused with the terms of trading.

It was not an offence to consume food after the hours. Mr Gazier states that  he had no previous involvement with Wicked Fish nor had any connection to the unfortunate murder that had taken place. Mr Gazier provided CCTV. Willingly to the police which is not  a condition of his license.

The Police are side-tracked by identifying the licensable hours.

The Law changed in 2003, with the provision of late night refreshment The offence being this, and the venue being open is case law, this is not an offence queuing on the cctv was evidence of that.

The context of this was many people just sitting and consuming food which was not an offence. And could do that for as long as they wished. The problem was the lost trust by the police, the continuing misunderstanding between trading and serving. The Applicant was sorry if this were a prosecution, he would get a fine. But we are before the sub-committee, being asked to be stripped of his licence, which was step too far. And disproportionate.

NOX users are those that go to nightclubs not late night refreshment venues. The reality were clubbers. However, with the exception of some people using NOX at the premises. Mr Gasior was not present rolling a joint.

Officers did visit the premises that night, where they witnessed rolling of the joint. and possibly seen NOX too. They did not take action on this. The person in question was a member of staff. He is no longer an employee. And there have been no other reference to drugs connected to premise.

This has been and expensive experience for Mr Gasior Mr Ranking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of crime and disorder and

·       The prevention of public nuisance

Representations:

·       Metropolitan Police

Ward: Bow East

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Wicked Fish, Queens Yard White Post Lane London E9 5EN (“the Premises”) for a variation of its licensable hours for Late Night Refreshment. Representations on this application had been received from the Police and the Licensing Authority.

The Sub-Committee considered at the same time an application by PC Mark Perry on behalf of the Metropolitan Police for the review of the premises licence held by Wicked Fish, Queens Yard White Post Lane London E9 5EN (“the Premises”). The application followed police analysis of CCTV at the premises over the course of several weeks in early 2023 identifying alleged breaches of licence conditions. The application was supported by the Licensing Authority.

All parties present confirmed they no objections to both items being heard together.

The Sub-Committee then heard representations from

• PC Mark Perry, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.
• Moshin Ali, Licensing Officer, on behalf of the Licensing Authority.
• Michal Gaiser (Applicant), James Rankin, (Barrister) and Adrian Studd on behalf of the Premises licence holder.

.

Mr Rankin who was representing his client made his submission to the sub-committee, this was a  High end late night premises.  The applicant was originally unaware of the licensing requirements. and has applied for variations of the licence several times with no objections. The applicant was confused with the terms of trading.

It was not an offence to consume food after the hours. Mr Gazier states that  he had no previous involvement with Wicked Fish nor had any connection to the unfortunate murder that had taken place. Mr Gazier provided CCTV. Willingly to the police which is not  a condition of his license.

The Police are side-tracked by identifying the licensable hours.

The Law changed in 2003, with the provision of late night refreshment The offence being this, and the venue being open is case law, this is not an offence queuing on the cctv was evidence of that.

The context of this was many people just sitting and consuming food which was not an offence. And could do that for as long as they wished. The problem was the lost trust by the police, the continuing misunderstanding between trading and serving. The Applicant was sorry if this were a prosecution, he would get a fine. But we are before the sub-committee, being asked to be stripped of his licence, which was step too far. And disproportionate.

NOX users are those that go to nightclubs not late night refreshment venues. The reality were clubbers. However, with the exception of some people using NOX at the premises. Mr Gasior was not present rolling a joint.

Officers did visit the premises that night, where they witnessed rolling of the joint. and possibly seen NOX too. They did not take action on this. The person in question was a member of staff. He is no longer an employee. And there have been no other reference to drugs connected to premise.

This has been and expensive experience for Mr Gasior Mr Ranking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

See decisions for 4.1 and 4.2.

The Sub Committee may be requested to extend the decision deadline for applications to be considered at forthcoming meetings due to the volume of applications requiring a hearing.  Where necessary, details will be provided at the meeting.

No extension of deadlines were agreed at this meeting. (Note – a second meeting of the sub committee at 6.00pm on 31 August agreed extensions to deadlines for a number of applications. See decisions of Licensing Sub Committee, 31 August 2023, 6.00pm.)