From the
https://www.kentonline.co.uk By Elli Hodgson, 20 April 2024.
The Long Dog pub in Market Street, Dartford has licence revoked after
police submit CCTV evidence of alleged drug use and supply on-site.
A micropub has lost its licence after police presented CCTV evidence of
alleged illegal drug use by staff and customers on 133 occasions.
The premises licence for the Long Dog in Market Street, Dartford has
been revoked by Dartford council following the identification of “very
serious issues”.
It comes after police submitted a review of the licence for the
business, formerly known as the "Dartford Jug," following alleged breaches
of conditions.
In a representation to Dartford council’s licencing sub-committee last
month, PC Andre Smuts presented evidence collected by police, including
an examination of the Long Dog’s CCTV.
The police believed the footage provided evidence for alleged drug
supply on the premises, alleged drug use of staff and customers, along
with evidence the premises remained open after licensing hours and
permitted children on site after 7pm in breach of the licencing hours.
Officers cited 133 times where it was alleged the video evidence showed
use of illegal drugs, cocaine and cannabis on the premises - 64 of which
was connected to the premises’ licence holder, Mr Daniel Farr.
While no criminal charges have been brought against the holder, who has
held the licence since July 2021, police also said in the report the
results of a drug swipe test indicated the presence of an illegal
substance on the premises.
Darryl Crossman, the representative for Mr Farr, told the sub-committee
his behaviour was “not appropriate” but it had arisen due to personal
and mental health issues for which he was seeking “medical assistance.”
In Mr Crossman’s statement, it was proposed that the premises licence
should be transferred to the co-owner of the pub, Mr Bray, who had
completed the necessary qualification and would be applying for a
personal licence.
The representative also explained that staff who were allegedly seen
taking drugs were no longer employed and Mr Bray would ensure that if Mr
Farr remained an employee, he would “never be the sole member of staff
on site”.
Turning to the police evidence, the licensing agent said that children
had been present outside of permitted hours on one occasion for a 50th
birthday celebration and argued there was no conclusive evidence
substances being used on the premises were illegal drugs.
Mr Crossman highlighted nothing had been detected on the premises during
a routine visit involving police sniffer dogs.
However, after seeking clarification on several points and retiring to
make a decision, the sub-committee concluded they had “no-confidence”
the licensing objectives would be promoted and so had no choice but to
revoke the licence.
A statement from the sub-committee read: “Given the very serious issues
raised by the police and the breaches of the licence that have clearly
taken place, the sub-committee were persuaded by the police’s arguments
and felt they had no alternative but to take the most serious step by
revoking the licence.
“The sub-committee in making their decision noted that Mr Bray (who is
still the co-owner and now the proposed designated premises supervisor)
had been involved in the premises since August 2022 and yet the
licensing objectives have been seriously undermined as outlined in the
application.
“The sub-committee had no faith, after hearing from all parties, that
the licensing objectives would be upheld if this course of action was
not taken, appreciating the fact that a revocation would normally only
be taken as a last resort.
“Therefore, it was felt both appropriate and necessary for the licence
to be revoked.”
The Long Dog was licenced to sell alcohol for consumption on and off the
premises and for the playing of recorded music.
It has operated as a pub since June 2018. Prior to that it was an Indian
takeway.
All parties now have until Thursday, April 25 to appeal against the
decision to the magistrates court.
The police and Dartford council declined to comment.
Mr Farr also declined to comment pending the outcome of any future
appeal process. |