The SEV licence is subject to annual renewal and runs from 1st June to 31st May each year. It is subject to the Council's standard conditions as well as some additional conditions imposed by the Committee in October 2017. The sole director of the licence holder is Manpal Singh Clair. On 3rd March 2023 Mr. Ali applied for the revocation of the licence following the discovery of breaches of the licence on 18th August 2022. That application was due to be heard on 16th May 2023. Shortly before the hearing Mr. Ali became aware of problems arising at a similar venue in Westminster. The licence for that venue, Vanity, was held by another company of which Mr. Clair was the sole director. Given that these issues could not be fairly addressed having arisen so close to the Committee meeting, that meeting did not proceed.

In the interim, however, the licence was due to be renewed and a renewal application had been made on 4th May 2023. That application attracted objections from both the Licensing Authority and the Police. Both applications were listed to be heard on the same evening and the parties all agreed that it was appropriate to hear both applications together given that the evidence and submissions would cover the same, or almost the same, points.

Licensing Authority

The Licensing Authority was represented by Mr. Cannon, the Police were represented by Mr. Rankin, and the licence holder was represented by Mr. Kolvin KC. It should be noted that the Police did not address the revocation application nor seek to make a late representation in that regard. The Committee was grateful to the parties for the concise way in which they each made their submissions.

Mr. Cannon addressed the Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority. He focused on three main areas of concern. The first was the breaches that occurred on 18th August 2022; the second was the licence holder’s response at the time and since; the third was to touch briefly on the issues arising at Vanity, the venue in Westminster.

He summarised the application, which followed a test purchasing exercise on 18th August 2022. Two operatives entered the Premises, paid for and were given private dances, and those dances were not compliant with the licence conditions. These were repeated breaches occurring over a period of about forty minutes. The

Licensing Authority and the licence holder had agreed a schedule of breaches [Bundle 1, pages 94 – 107]. In the main, the schedule showed breaches of two no-touching rules. One was condition 35 which prohibited physical contact between customer and performer [Bundle 1, page 479], the other was condition 38 which prohibited touching between performers as well as prohibiting performers from touching themselves in a sexually explicit way [Bundle 1, page 479].

The breaches were by more than one dancer. The purpose of a test purchasing exercise is that the operatives act as any patron would or might act. Having paid for private dances, they witnessed multiple breaches of these conditions. In addition, the CCTV footage obtained from the Premises showed a third dancer with a customer in the same time period and similar breaches taking place. These breaches were, in Mr. Cannon's submission, serious.

Mr. Cannon reminded the Committee that this was not the first time that the licence holder had failed to comply with its conditions. He drew the Committee’s attention to the minutes of its meeting of 17th October 2017 and the findings [Bundle 1, Page 139] of various breaches of the conditions 35 and 38. The licence holder’s response at that time was to offer up additional conditions to be imposed on the licence. One of those conditions was condition 45 [Bundle 1, page 141] and this required that trained staff were to regularly monitor the CCTV covering the private areas when those areas were in use. This was to ensure that problems could be addressed immediately if they arose.

Mr. Cannon referred to the risk assessment for 2022 [Bundle 1, page 373]. This noted that “The manager now has the IT facility to monitor the entertainment live as it is being provided in the entertainment areas. The use of the facility is continually being monitored during the covert and overt visits to the venue.” It noted that no other mitigation was required at that time.

Mr. Cannon noted that Mr. Clair said that on 19th August 2022 he was made aware of rumours that some of the dancers were not complying with the rules. He asked Mr. Binning to look into this. Mr. Cannon asked, if the CCTV was being continually checked, how these breaches were allowed to persist for forty minutes. One possibility was that the CCTV was not being continually or regularly monitored. Another possibility was that the breaches were witnessed and ignored. The condition was imposed to stop that and it doesn’t do so.

Mr. Cannon informed the Committee that Mr. Binning carried out dip sampling at Mr. Clair’s request [Bundle 1, page 230]. He reminded the Committee that at this point in time the licence holder had no knowledge of the test purchasing activity. The dancers in question had all been dancing at the Premises for about two weeks. Mr. Binning therefore had two weeks of performances to view but he viewed the footage for the date and time that the test purchasers were present and witnessing non-compliant dances. The dip sampling log [Bundle 1, page 246] stated the precise time period that the test purchasers were present. No other dip sampling seems to have occurred.

Mr. Cannon submitted that if the Premises management were reviewing the private areas, there was no possibility that these breaches could not have been witnessed.

Moreover, he suggested that it was highly unlikely that that the dancers only breached the rules on 18th August at 23:00 hours.

Mr. Cannon then addressed the Committee in respect of Vanity. He drew the Committee’s attention to Mr. Clair’s statement made in advance of the revocation application hearing in May 2023. At paragraphs 10 and 11 [Bundle 1, page 158] he lists the premises his companies operate and had operated. On 25th May 2023, Westminster City Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee heard the SEV licence renewal application in respect of Vanity. The police had opposed the renewal of that licence because of multiple breaches. This information was what came to light shortly before the revocation application hearing and that was why the meeting of 16th May 2023 could not proceed.

Mr. Clair’s account for this omission was in his statement dated 14th September 2023. At paragraphs 10 to 12 [Bundle 2, page 6] he explains why he had not mentioned Vanity, which was that it had been closed in breach of a no-touching condition. Mr. Clair said there was no intention to deceive. However, Mr. Cannon drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that Mr. Clair’s first witness statement referred to both current and past businesses that his company had operated.

In closing, Mr. Cannon submitted that these were serious and repeated breaches committed by three separate performers. The licence holder claimed to have responded in a regulatorily compliant way but homed in on the precise time of the breaches. Mr. Clair had not been up front about the venues he operated and Mr. Cannon urged the Committee to revoke the licence and to refuse to renew it.

After Mr Cannon’s submission the Committee had the opportunity to ask questions which they responded and answered.

Metropolitan Police

Mr. Rankin then addressed the Committee on behalf of the Police, in respect of the renewal application only. He remarked upon the voluminous documentation before the Committee and suggested that this was done in an attempt by the licence holder to persuade the Committee that matters were now resolved. They were not and he asserted that Mr. Clair and his staff were not fit for purpose.

Mr. Rankin referred to the Licensing Committee’s minutes of 17th October 2017 minutes. What took place in May 2017, which gave rise to that hearing, is what happened again in August 2022 and in Vanity in November 2022. Mr. Rankin referred specifically to the third paragraph of Bundle 1, page 133 which recorded that Mr. Kolvin, who was acting for the licence holder, confirmed that the licence holder now accepted those breaches had occurred, apologised for those, and that it was not how the venue was supposed to be run. Mr. Rankin emphasised that “It was noted that measures were now in place to prevent this from ever happening again.” This was likely to be said again. Mr. Rankin submitted that there has to come a time when that can no longer hold true.

Mr. Rankin noted that in 2017 the police were content with the proposed additional conditions. This was taken into account by the Committee [Bundle 1, page 137 and Page 140 at numbered paragraph 3]. The licence holder had the support of the police and the Licensing Authority at that time. They did not do what they had said they would do.

Mr. Rankin noted that Mr. Clair, in his own words, described the events of 18th August 2022 as “unique.” The Committee had seen a brief period of the CCTV footage and

there was nothing unique about those events nor about those in 2017. This simply demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that Mr. Clair had allowed to take place at his premises.

Westminster City Council did not renew the licence for Vanity and Mr. Rankin noted that Mr. Kolvin’s skeleton argument stated that the Westminster decision did not dictate the outcome of these proceedings. However, in Mr. Rankin’s submission the facts of the Vanity case do dictate the outcome here. The minutes of that that Sub-Committee hearing appeared at Bundle 1, pages 113 -128. Mr. Rankin referred to page 119, in which Mr. Grant (counsel for the licence holder at the Westminster proceedings) expressed the licence holder’s outrage at the breaches and dismissed the staff immediately. There was no mention of the Nag’s Head by or on behalf of the licence holder; the proceedings before the Tower Hamlets Licensing Committee were kept secret by the licence holder. The licence holder instructed two separate barristers for the two sets of proceedings, which Mr. Rankin said was to put some distance between them. He asserted that the licence holder had sought to pull the wool over the eyes of both licensing committees.

Mr. Rankin referred to the statement of PC Reaz Guerra, which appeared in Bundle 1 at pages 36 – 81. PC Guerra referred to a schedule of breaches at Vanity [Bundle 1, pages 51 – 63] and which breaches had been agreed with the licence holder. Mr. Rankin corrected an error in the schedule, which was headed 21/22 Dec 2022 rather than November. This showed breaches of a no-touching condition from a number of angles and which took place over an evening. Despite ample opportunity for intervention by SIA and management, nobody did so.

Mr. Rankin referred also to a reluctance on the part of the licence holder’s solicitors to release the CCTV footage to the police when asked to do so. That too was a matter of concern to the police and it took protracted correspondence to obtain it. Mr. Rankin said that once obtained, the reason for the reluctance was obvious. The footage was, in his submission, “damning.” Four out of six booths were covered by CCTV. There were beaded curtains in place covering the CCTV. At one point, a dancer took a customer to an area that was not monitored by CCTV.

Mr. Rankin discussed the CCTV and the dip sampling. He reminded the Committee that those alleged to have been performing in a non-compliant manner were dancers who started at the beginning of August and were told what to do and what not to do. Around 16th August 2022 Mr. Binning heard rumours. Mr. Rankin noted that Mr. Binning, who can view the CCTV on his phone, did not start doing that. He did not dip sample any other days to allay his concerns. On 19th August 2022 he spoke to Mr. Clair about his suspicions. The police consider it more likely that the venue staff became aware of the mystery shoppers and that the paper trail was then developed to cast a different light on matters.

Mr. Rankin also commented on the fact that the only sampling apparently carried out by Mr. Binning was the precise time that the test purchasers were present. He did not go back to when they were first employed. He reminded the Committee that in all the paperwork before it there was only one page showing a dip sample and that was the one for the night of 18th August 2022. Mr. Rankin also referred to Mr. Clair’s statement dated 8th May 2023 in which he referred to having watched 25 hours of

footage for the period from 20th August 2022 to 24th September 2022 and found no evidence of breaches. Mr. Rankin commented that this was not surprising given that it post-dated the breaches and the performers wouldhave been read the riot act. What would have been far more relevant would have been dip sampling and records prior to 18th August 2022.

By the same token, Mr. Rankin suggested that the schedule of compliant dances on the night of 18th August which had been prepared by the licence holder’s solicitors was not relevant. The issue was not about whether some performers were compliant; it was about those who were not and who appeared to be unchecked and unmonitored.

Mr. Rankin suggested that the Premises had had its chances. It had failed to meet standards in 2017 and had been given a further chance. The same incidents had occurred in August 2022 and then again (in Vanity) in November 2022. There was a limit to the number of chances to be given. The view of the police was that there had been enough opportunity given to the Premises and that the Committee could refuse the licence as a deterrent to others. Renewing in light of these breaches would simply suggest that all a licence holder needed to do was apologise to the Committee.

After Mr Cannon’s submission the Committee had the opportunity to ask questions which they responded and answered.

The renewal application decision

Given the Committee’s decision on the revocation application, it follows that the application to renew would be refused on the same basis. It would be inconsistent for the Committee to revoke the licence and to then renew it. The reasons set out above in relation to the revocation apply equally to the renewal application and the Committee does not therefore repeat them here. The Committee did agree with Mr. Kolvin that it was not possible to refuse to renew as a deterrent to others.

The consideration of the renewal application also took account of the following matters. The matters arising at Vanity were of grave concern. Whilst the Committee noted that the problems at Vanity appeared to have been more deeply-rooted, that was in part because there was substantially more evidence available there. What it did demonstrate, however, was that there was clearly insufficient management oversight at that Premises. Given that it was coming a little after the events at the Nag’s Head and that Mr. Clair was aware of the events of 18^th August 2022, it suggests to the Committee that he was not fully alive to the possibility of problems elsewhere. That failing again goes to the heart of his suitability to operate a compliant SEV.

The Committee noted too that the licence holder had failed to mention to Westminster the issues that had arisen at the Nag’s Head. The minutes of the Westminster City Council Licensing Sub-Committee meeting indicated that the information about the Tower Hamlets proceedings had been introduced by the police.

Mr. Rankin also referred to difficulties with obtaining the CCTV footage from Vanity and which was only handed over after some protracted correspondence. A failure to co-operate with those tasked with regulating such venues is also a matter which goes to the suitability of the licence holder to hold the licence. 

The decision of the Committee is therefore to refuse the application for renewal of the SEV licence.