Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC245

royal court

(Samedi Division)

20^th December 2007

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt. Bailiff, and Jurats Bullen, Allo, Clapham, Le Cornu, and Morgan.

LICENSING ASSEMBLY APPLICATION

Advocate A. D. Hoy for the Eagle Tavern.

In the matter of the Eagle Tavern Limited

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        The licence was revoked on 13^th June, 2007 and an application to restore the licence was rejected by the Assembly on 26^th September, 2007.  At that time a judgment was delivered by the Deputy Bailiff which set out the Assembly's reasons for the rejection.

2.        In essence the Assembly was not satisfied that steps had been taken by the Brewery to contact the residents of neighbouring properties so as to ascertain the exact nature of their concerns and to seek to address them, and secondly the Assembly wanted further information and assurances that the proposed manager and staff had been properly trained. 

3.        We have received a great deal of information about the training procedures which Randall's have put in place.  We think that this staff training is, on the face of it, adequate and that the applicant company has satisfied us on that point. 

4.        We have also been told of a meeting convened by Randall's, at which 12 residents attended and outlined their grievances.  It is perhaps unfortunate that the States of Jersey Police were not invited to attend that meeting, but the Constable of St Helier did however attend.  The grievances of the residents were essentially that Randall's had been a bad neighbour for many years. Customers had been allowed to drink to excess and the result had been violence, intimidation, noise, disturbance and the perpetration of foul and anti-social behaviour upon residents and their properties.  Unsurprisingly the residents have regarded the last 6 months, during which the Eagle Tavern has been closed, as a period of peace and tranquillity and they wish that peace to continue. 

5.        The Parish Assembly, at which this application was considered, recommended by a majority that the licence should not be granted.  We have considered very carefully all the arguments put before us by counsel on behalf of the applicant company and the objections which have been voiced eloquently by a number of residents of neighbouring properties.  Our duty under Article 6 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974, in deciding whether or not an application for a licence should be granted, is to have regard:-

(i)        To the interests of the public in general; and

(ii)       To the nature of the business to be conducted and the suitability of the premises in question for the conduct of that business.

We are to have regard to, but we are not bound by, the decision of the Parish Assembly.

6.        We wish to state first of all that the public, and we include in particular the residents of properties adjacent to the Eagle Tavern, do not have to tolerate and should not be expected to tolerate the kind of drunken and disgusting behaviour from patrons of licensed premises about which the Assembly has heard this morning, and at earlier hearings.  We hope that the revocation of the licence of the Eagle Tavern will have sent out a clear message that the Assembly listens to the concerns of the public and, where appropriate, acts upon them.  The Assembly can however do nothing if public concerns are not voiced and recorded.  As will be evident, we have had very anxious and prolonged discussion in relation to this application. 

7.        It is true that there has been a public house on this site for many years.  On the other hand the kind of behaviour to which residents have been subjected is not acceptable.  It is simply unfair to expect people to put up with it.  At the last meeting of the Assembly the Deputy Bailiff stated:-

"However, given the history of these particular premises, before allowing the premises to reopen we would need to be satisfied that the real and justified concerns of the residents have been fully addressed and that all reasonable steps have been taken by the applicant to try and meet those concerns."

8.        We do not think that the applicant company has taken all reasonable steps to meet the real and justified concerns of the residents.  We think that the residents were entitled to be presented with plans for the running of the public house which would persuade them that the kind of business which had been conducted for many years on these premises was to change.  The applicant company has not done that.  It has only stated that there will be a competent manager, that there will be no karaoke and that smokers will be encouraged to use an area at the back of the premises.  That is not good enough.  The residents are entitled to be assured that the business will be conducted in a different way, so that it is suitable for the environment in which the premises are situated, that is a residential area with many flats, cottages and small houses in the immediate vicinity.  It is not for us to suggest to the applicant company how the business could be adapted but we are sure that there are ways in which that could be done.  A public house where the business is centred upon the consumption of alcohol is no longer an appropriate business for this vicinity and is not in the interests of the public.

9.        Until the applicant company is able to present a compelling case that, not only lessons have been learnt, but also the lives of residents are not going to be disrupted in the way in which they have been disrupted in the past, the Assembly will not grant a First Category Licence for the Eagle Tavern.

10.      The application is accordingly refused.

Authorities

Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.