To consider and determine an application, in respect of the Premises detailed above, for a Review of a Premises Licence.

Members considered an application for a Review of a Premises Licence, in respect of the Premises detailed above.

Written Representations received from:

Oral Representations received from:

The following additional information was submitted by the Respondent and circulated on 23 June 2021:

Decision: 

That the Premises Licence in respect of Hennessey Cocktails, 2 King Street, Brixham be revoked.

Reason for Decision:

Having carefully considered all the oral and written Representations, Members resolved unanimously to revoke the Premises Licence, as they could not be satisfied on the evidence before them that the Premises Licence Holder, Mr Hennessey, would comply with all the conditions of his premises licence and with that, ensure the Licensing Objectives would be promoted.

In coming to that decision, Members noted the concerns raised by the Police and Public Protection Officers in respect of Mr Hennessey’s management of these Premises, the previous advice and guidance given to him by them and his subsequent non-compliance with conditions of his Premises Licence, particularly in respect of CCTV and the requirement to make the recordings available within 14 days, in a standard and appropriate format subsequently requested by the Police.  In this regard, Members noted that Mr Hennessey had only made available to the Police the hard drive, believed to contain the recordings some three months later, at which time it was reported that there was nothing of evidential value found.

In Members opinion, they found Mr Hennessey had acted in an obstructive manner for the sole purpose of attempting to avoid a prosecution, in accordance with The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 Regulation 8 and Schedule 2, Part 3 paragraph 14 (-1).  In forming this opinion, Members, had regard to the oral evidence of the Responsible Authority Officers and the Police’s legal representative; and that set out in the Licensing Authority’s Public Protection Officer’s representation, at paragraph 16, page 92 of the report before them which referenced an email sent by Mr Hennessey to the Council in February 2021 which states that Mr Hennessey posed the question ‘ if the Council do not have a copy of the CCTV then they have no evidence of the Covid Breaches’.

Whist these Regulations are not specifically a licensing matter, Members noted Mr Hennessey’s submissions that he was aware of the requirements in this regard, that he had also read the additional guidance provided by the Responsible Authority and had spoken with one of the Licensing Authority’s Officers about this.  It was following these submissions that Members had serious concern of Mr Hennessey’s suitability to remain a Premises Licence Holder, in the knowledge that there was a global pandemic, a significant number of persons had died as a direct result, what restrictions were in place at the time and despite this, Mr Hennessey actively chose to place people’s lives at risk by ignoring these Regulations, in allowing his premises to be used for the sole purpose of a private party which in Members opinion, would not have been compliant with the restrictions in place at the time and Mr Hennessey would have known this; and furthermore, Mr Hennessey had on a separate occasion, sold alcohol to persons without providing food, as required by the Regulations.  This was in addition of the attempt by Mr Hennessey to mislead Responsible Authority Officers in to believing that his premises were closed at the time, a position which Mr Hennessey chose to maintain to Members of the Sub-Committee.

Coupled together, Members found Mr Hennessey had acted recklessly with a poor attitude towards the Regulations in place and this caused them grave concerns about his ability, suitability and willingness to operate a licensed premises in a responsible manner, compliant with the conditions of that premises licence and to ensure promotion of the Licensing Objectives above all else, given the evidence before them.  Members also found Mr Hennessey to be wholly dishonest in his account of the various events discussed.

Overall and unanimously, Members resolved that Mr Hennessey’s conduct fell well below the standards reasonably expected by them of a responsible Premises Licence Holder and for the reasons given, they had no confidence in him operating this premises in the future and therefore determined that revocation was in their opinion, an appropriate and proportionate outcome of this Review.

In concluding, Members considered what if any modifications could be made to the premises licence, as opposed to a revocation but resolved on the evidence before them, that there were none.  In addition, Members considered removing Mr Hennessey as the Designated Premises Supervisor but resolved that this would not be enough to alleviate their concerns, as Mr Hennessey would still have day to day control of the premises.