Agenda item

RESOLVED: That the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of agenda item 6 due to the disclosure of exempt information as defined under paragraph 1, Part 1 , Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee had regard to the section 182 Statutory Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and considered the convictions to be sufficiently serious and relevant for the application to be rejected.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted that the Statutory Guidance states that a conviction for a prison sentence of over 4 years can never become spent and that it is outside the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Sub-Committee considered the application following the completion of the applicant’s prison sentence, and noted that the applicant had not been in trouble with the Police since he was released.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had taken steps to rebuild and improve his life to enhance himself since he was released from prison. The applicant explained that he has a TFL taxi licence which is due to be renewed shortly.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration the representations made by the Police that the applicant has unspent relevant convictions and confirmed that a prison sentence of over 4 years can never become spent. The Police also maintained their objection to this application, which was that to grant a personal licence to the applicant, given the circumstances and nature of the offences, would not promote the crime and disorder objective.

The Police explained that not having a personal licence does not stop the applicant having a management position and working their way up in the hospitality industry.

The Sub-Committee noted that in this case the applicant served a custodial sentence of over 4 years which can never be spent. The Police considered that the applicant was not a suitable person to hold a personal licence.

The Sub-Committee noted, when making their decision, that no suitable mitigating circumstances could be provided to assist the sub-committee in demonstrating that the prevention of crime and disorder objective would not be undermined.

RESOLVED: That the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of agenda item 6 due to the disclosure of exempt information as defined under paragraph 1, Part 1 , Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Principal Licensing officer introduced the report in respect of a personal licence application which had received objections from the police.

The Sub Committee heard from the Metropolitan Police representative who stated that the applicant had previously been in prison for seven years for serious offences. Referring to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the Sub-Committee was informed that when a person is convicted of an offence which results in a custodial sentence of more than four years, this was never spent.  It was confirmed that the applicant had not contacted the police following their representation.

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant’s representative.  It was explained that the applicant had not been involved in any unlawful activity since his conviction in 2006.

The Sub-Committee discussed the application and it was clarified that the Sub-Committee was unable to exercise any discretion and had no other option than to refuse the application, due to the unspent relevant conviction.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that the applicant had been referred to the on-line guidance.

In concluding, It was explained that a personal licence could not be issued, due to the stipulation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The applicant was informed that this would not prohibit him from working within licensed establishments in a managerial capacity; however he would not be able to work as a Designated Premises Supervisor.

The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision from the information presented to them within the report and at the hearing today have determined that having regard to the promotion of the licensing objective concerned with:

? the prevention of crime and disorder objective,

the application for a personal licence has been refused, having particular regard to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy LP9.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee had regard to the section 182 Statutory Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and considered the convictions to be sufficiently serious and relevant for the application to be rejected.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted that the Statutory Guidance states that a conviction for a prison sentence of over 4 years can never become spent and that it is outside the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Sub-Committee considered the application following the completion of the applicant’s prison sentence, and noted that the applicant had not been in trouble with the Police since he was released.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had taken steps to rebuild and improve his life to enhance himself since he was released from prison. The applicant explained that he has a TFL taxi licence which is due to be renewed shortly.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration the representations made by the Police that the applicant has unspent relevant convictions and confirmed that a prison sentence of over 4 years can never become spent. The Police also maintained their objection to this application, which was that to grant a personal licence to the applicant, given the circumstances and nature of the offences, would not promote the crime and disorder objective.

The Police explained that not having a personal licence does not stop the applicant having a management position and working their way up in the hospitality industry.

The Sub-Committee noted that in this case the applicant served a custodial sentence of over 4 years which can never be spent. The Police considered that the applicant was not a suitable person to hold a personal licence.

The Sub-Committee noted, when making their decision, that no suitable mitigating circumstances could be provided to assist the sub-committee in demonstrating that the prevention of crime and disorder objective would not be undermined.