Music venue to have its licence reviewed (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Music venue to have its licence reviewed
10:00pm Wednesday 16th January 2013 in News By David Wiles
Buy this photo »
The Victoria pub, in Old Town. Picture: SIOBHAN BOYLE
THE Victoria pub, in Old Town, is to set have its premises licence reviewed by Swindon Council tomorrow after being caught on two separate occasions selling booze to teenagers.
The popular watering-hole and music venue, in Victoria Road, whose premises licence is held by Anna Sprawson and David Young, failed two test purchases by underage volunteers for Wiltshire Police in May 2010 and October 2012.
Police also called the review as there have been public safety issues at the venue owing to the smoking area being directly outside on a public footpath beside a busy main road.
Swindon Council’s licensing committee has wide powers to sanction the venue, ranging from modifying the conditions of the licence and removing one or more of the activities authorised, through to suspending the licence for up to three months or completely revoking the licence.
Police will ask the committee to consider a number of conditions, including that the premises must have a door supervisor on a Friday and Saturday evening or at any other time on a risk-assessed basis, that no one under 18 will be allowed in after 7pm, that no drinks or glasses will be allowed off the premises, and a Challenge 21 policy should apply, meaning anyone looking 21 or under is automatically asked for ID.
A report to be presented to tomorrow’s committee shows that The Victoria served drink to two girls aged 15 and 16 on May 28, 2010.
The pub did not fail any further test purchase until October 27, 2012, when two 17-year-olds bought Bulmer’s cider and a Smirnoff ice.
Police say the youngsters on both occasions were not challenged on entry as the venue does not employ door staff.
In the report, police licensing officer, Sian Kalynka writes: “It is widely accepted that incidents of disorder linked to the night time economy are also linked to the excessive consumption of alcohol.
Under-age alcohol sales by on-licensed premise place young people at risk of becoming victims of crime and developing health issues.”
In a response on behalf of the licence holders, lawyer Nigel Musgrove said two failed test purchases in two and a half years cannot be considered persistent sales to children, and points out that the venue passed three test purchases between May 2010 and October 2012, plus one in February 2010.
He said many premises which failed the operation in October 2012 complained the volunteers looked considerable older than they were.
The premises licence holders have suggested a number of conditions on their licence, including that a doorman should work on Friday and Saturday evenings from 9am and at other times on a risk-assessed basis, a Challenge 25 policy should be implemented, and that no drinks or glassware should be allowed off the premises.
Comments(24)
twasadawf
says...
10:45pm Wed 16 Jan 13
Bimbosforjustice
says...
10:56pm Wed 16 Jan 13
RichardR1
says...
6:19am Thu 17 Jan 13
Have we ever read of an under age person being prosecuted for attempting to purchase under age when the licensee detects this. Apparently they don't because it may give the young person a criminal record.
Never mind the damage it does to the pub. It's about time the police started to do again what I saw in my youth and that is regular, in uniform visits to act as a real deterrent . But I guess that is to proactive.
peatmoor pirate
says...
8:17am Thu 17 Jan 13
Tim Newroman
says...
8:26am Thu 17 Jan 13
police licensing officer, Sian Kalynka writes: “It is widely accepted that incidents of disorder linked to the night time economy are also linked to the excessive consumption of alcohol.
This is very true. Only, the criminals concerned aren't 17 year olds who have been drinking in pubs. It's almost always legal drinkers (ie, those over 18, and in most cases over 21, ironically) who have pre-loaded before heading in to the town centre and/or Old Town specifically because they will be able to cause more trouble there than in their own homes.
I find it very strange how the authorities stage these underage visits and then immediately take action against the pubs concerned, and yet generally ignore - or just give utterly meaningless police 'warnings' - to the actual drunken criminals they see every weekend. Maybe it has something to do with being able to easily fine busineses large amounts that they then have no choice but to repay?
Also, one of the main reasons alcohol is a problem with criminality is because judges and magistrates STILL allow defence lawyers and criminals to get away with even more lenient sentences if they use 'being very drunk' as a mitigating factor. When, in reality, sentences should actually be increased if the criminal was drunk at the time of the offence. Implement that policy and you'll soon notice that not one single criminal ever has a drink (according to their defence liars, sorry, lawyers).
KM1981
says...
12:09pm Thu 17 Jan 13
benzss
says...
1:40pm Thu 17 Jan 13
RichardR1 wrote:Odd, in my youth the attitude was very much "you may or may not be 18, but if you sit quietly with your mates and have a couple of pints, nobody's going to care". Worked for me. At least I know pub etiquette and know my limits (these two are arguably the same thing).
Amazing isn't it that the only time pubs are found to serve under age is in this type of operation. Have we ever read of an under age person being prosecuted for attempting to purchase under age when the licensee detects this. Apparently they don't because it may give the young person a criminal record. Never mind the damage it does to the pub. It's about time the police started to do again what I saw in my youth and that is regular, in uniform visits to act as a real deterrent . But I guess that is to proactive.
house on the hill
says...
1:45pm Thu 17 Jan 13
RichardR1
says...
7:30am Fri 18 Jan 13
itsamess3
says...
8:28am Fri 18 Jan 13
RichardR1
says...
9:46am Fri 18 Jan 13
The power lies within Section 31 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which made it possible for the police and trading standards departments to carry out test purchase operations using under-age test purchasers.
Of course I am open to any evidence that this law has been redacted or overturned by the courts. Not the word EVIDENCE Mr itsamess not just your usual I know it's not true approach.
Tim Newroman
says...
11:44am Fri 18 Jan 13
itsamess3
says...
3:02pm Fri 18 Jan 13
RichardR1 wrote:Sect 30+31 both repealed 24/11/2005
Mr itsamess you are simply wrong, no such order is required with regard to the prevention of under-age sales.
The power lies within Section 31 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which made it possible for the police and trading standards departments to carry out test purchase operations using under-age test purchasers.
Of course I am open to any evidence that this law has been redacted or overturned by the courts. Not the word EVIDENCE Mr itsamess not just your usual I know it's not true approach.
RichardR1
says...
6:36pm Fri 18 Jan 13
Until then and considering stings are happening the length and breadth of the country by every police force and LA, you have not provided evidence.
itsamess3
says...
10:18pm Fri 18 Jan 13
As you did not provide a link as you claim-that does suggest you have lost the plot-you merely quoted the act you rely on.
As that act in relation to both para 31 + 30 which relate to underage drinking and both have been repealed as stated you clearly lack understanding of how to read law.
Much the same as your recent claims as to who owns Waitrose.
Learn the lesson.
RichardR1
says...
11:13am Sat 19 Jan 13
Still obsessing about the absent barman I see.
As for Waitrose I provided the source, which as I said if wrong should be taken up with them.
itsamess3
says...
11:52am Sat 19 Jan 13
You were wholly wrong as that section was repealed-as was sect 30 which deals with underage drinking.
The lesson to be learned is to check fully any law as they could have been repealed-or subject to appeal rulings.
That is your mistake-not others and you are not man enough to admit so.
RichardR1
says...
2:42pm Sat 19 Jan 13
As I've attempted to be helpful and you still maintain you are right then there is little more to say other than the facts speak for themselves, the stings continue unabated. Perhaps you should report the Police and Trading Standards for abuse of power in public office.
itsamess3
says...
12:19pm Sun 20 Jan 13
itsamess3 wrote:You really are getting into a pickle bobby.
RichardR1 wrote:Sect 30+31 both repealed 24/11/2005
Mr itsamess you are simply wrong, no such order is required with regard to the prevention of under-age sales.
The power lies within Section 31 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which made it possible for the police and trading standards departments to carry out test purchase operations using under-age test purchasers.
Of course I am open to any evidence that this law has been redacted or overturned by the courts. Not the word EVIDENCE Mr itsamess not just your usual I know it's not true approach.
Firstly you claimedThe power lies within Section 31 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which made it possible for the police and trading standards departments to carry out test purchase.
Then you claim-Of course I am open to any evidence that this law has been redacted or overturned by the courts.
Perhaps you should check what redacted means-and remember the courts are not empowered to overturn laws.
Thus-as the section was repealed as stated--you were totally wrong.
As to your latest contention-the use of minors by police to commit an offence is subject to challenge in law.
As the council will be holding a review the decision they take regardless could be challenged via JR successfully and costs awarded under court rules.
It is wholly wrong that a venue with a good record should be targetted in this way.
Making a fool of yourself has become commonplace.
RichardR1
says...
1:11pm Mon 21 Jan 13
http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/ukpga/2003
/17/section/149
See sub section 2
I concede I was unaware the previous legislation had been repealed but that was because it duplicated the Licensing Act, not as you allude to because it was unlawful. Because laws per sey or se depending on which you prefer can't be unlawful.
itsamess3
says...
3:53pm Mon 21 Jan 13
Again-simply- the barperson who served the 2 girls had no cause not to serve them as they seemed of age.
Had they arrived at the bar in school uniform they undoubtedly would have.
If i am not mistaken children accompanied by an adult are still allowed in licenced premises.
Thus whether you like it or not tha act of engaging children purposely to commit an offence can be challenged through a wide range of laws.
That reminds me of a case in the 80s where a policeman concluded 2 men were guilty of a crime and induced his colleague to alter his notes and statements to secure a conviction.
How does this fit in with this story?
Again this shows that appeals procedures examine the relative law.
The same would apply if the pub challenged the decision-the lawfulness of using minors to commit an offence to enable a review to take place.The function of the appeals courts is to define the law and rectify injustice-however minor.
RichardR1
says...
8:46am Tue 22 Jan 13
It is not, whether it can be challenged in the courts (which of course it can) is not what the discussion has been about until you lost. End of story.
itsamess3
says...
9:53am Tue 22 Jan 13
Evidential rules apply to every law. In the pubs case a good lawyer would insist the children were called to give their evidence to prove they were asked to commit an offence--or are you suggesting they are immune?
The law says it is an offence for a minor to purchase alcohol-simple.
Do produce the law that says it is not.
Specifically.
tucker81 says...
10:21pm Wed 16 Jan 13