Showing posts with label premises licence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label premises licence. Show all posts

Tuesday, 10 June 2025

Police call for the suspension of Carlton Lounge's premises licence after stabbing incident

 

Photo: Carlton Lounge

Following the stabbing outside the Carlton Lounge/Tiger Bay in Kingsbury on May18th the police have applied for the suspension of its licence.  A decision will be made by the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee on Friday at 10am.

The police list a number of 'failings':

1) Police were called at 03:31 hours on Sunday 18th May 2025 by LAS - which had in turn received a 999 call from a man reporting a stabbing at Tiger Bay. On police and medic arrival, no casualty was present.

At 03:40 police had a call from a nurse at Northwick Park Hospital to report a man had come in with stab wounds.

 

2) CCTV shows a large-scale disorder immediately outside the venue from about 03:25 to 03:30, during which the victim received a stab wound and collapsed at the scene. He was taken to hospital by other people, before emergency services arrived. Estimated 20-25 people involved in the disorder.

 

3) There was no call from the venue staff or management to reports of the disorder, or anything else. Staff were present and witnessing events, and security personnel were involved in the disorder, in apparent attempts to separate people.

 

4) The suspect can be seen entering the venue at 02:00am, with others. There is no search of any of them, frisk, metal detector, wand or otherwise.

 

5) The suspect is later seen outside with a large knife, which was used in the disorder and appears to have been used to stab the victim, ultimately killing him (subject to pathology confirmation on cause of death).

 

6) Appears likely that the knife was in the suspect’s possession inside the venue.

 

7) Police body worn video (BWV) shows a manager telling an attending CID officer that the groups involved in the disorder had not been inside Tiger Bay before the disorder. This was untrue, as they had been and indeed most, if not all, of the people had come from inside Tiger Bay, some having been specifically ejected by the staff/security.

 

8) Police BWV shows the manager saying he thinks a bottle/bottles were involved. A customer approaches and says a knife was used and had been pulled out inside the venue. He was promptly ushered away by another manager/member of staff.

 

9) House to house enquiries revealed local residents complain there is frequently noisy anti-social behaviour from the venue.

 

Summary

 

This incident on 18 May 2025, constitutes serious crime and disorder, which has triggered this review. The Metropolitan Police have serious concerns that the premises management and staff members demonstrated a lack of control and failing to undertake pro-active searches. The staff initially indicated that the incident did not start in the venue and later retracted their statement, admitting that both groups were in fact inside the venue, where the altercation started.

 

Due to the ongoing criminal investigation, it is currently difficult to establish the full facts from a licensing perspective. However, from the information we have gathered so far, the Police have that the aforementioned points above demonstrate that the licensing objectives are not being upheld.

 

Police Recommendation – The Police request an immediate suspension of Carlton Lounge’s premises licence pending a full review due the level of seriousness of the incident.

 

There are many documents on the Agenda website many of which are are similar wording.  Below are an example of a comment for suspension and one in favour:

Dear Licensing Team,

 

Subject: Request for Confidentiality – Representation Regarding Carlton Lounge (Tiger Bay) I am submitting the attached representation in support of the review of the premises licence for Carlton Lounge (Tiger Bay), 232–234 Kingsbury Road, London, NW9 0BH.

 

Due to the serious nature of the incidents associated with this venue and the fear of potential retribution, I respectfully request that my personal details be withheld from the premises licence holder and any other parties not directly involved in the licensing authority’s internal process.

 

As a local resident, I am deeply concerned about the ongoing serious incidents linked to this venue, including criminal activity, anti-social behaviour, and consistent late-night disturbances. These have had a direct and damaging impact on the local community, creating a heightened sense of fear and unease among residents. There have been multiple occasions of violent disorder, noise nuisance, and other behaviours that clearly breach the licensing objectives—particularly those relating to the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of public safety. The presence of this venue in its current state has significantly deteriorated the quality of life for people living nearby.

 

The fact that people feel unsafe speaking out should be of grave concern and further supports the need for urgent and decisive intervention.

 

I strongly urge Brent Council to consider revoking the premises licence or imposing stringent new conditions that will prioritise the safety, peace, and wellbeing of the community.

 

I understand that under the Licensing Act 2003, representations usually need to be attributed to named individuals. However, I ask that you exercise your discretion under your powers to protect the identity of persons who may be at risk, and treat this representation with the appropriate level of confidentiality

 

 -0-0-0-0-0-0-0-

 

My name is [] and I have dedicated 16 years to education, working as a [] across both primary and secondary schools. Now, as the [] and [] of based at [] in Brent, I continue my commitment to developing young people, instilling discipline, and providing opportunities through sport.

 

I am writing to express my full support for the premises licence held by Carlton Lounge (Tiger Bay), located at 232 - 234 Kingsbury Road, London, NW9 0BH.

 

Carlton Lounge has been a steadfast supporter of our []for the past seven years,  providing financial assistance that has directly benefited our  []. Their contributions have helped equip our young athletes with essential gear, allowing them to train, develop their skills, and build confidence in a structured and positive environment. Their sponsorship is not just about funding, it is about investing in young people, giving them opportunities to thrive both in sport and in life.

 

As someone who has personally overseen the development of young boxers within our programme, I can confidently say that Carlton Lounge has been a valued partner in supporting positive community initiatives. Their generosity has empowered children and young adults who may not otherwise have access to sporting opportunities, reinforcing the importance of teamwork, discipline, and self-belief.

 

Beyond their contributions to our [], Carlton Lounge has consistently demonstrated a commitment to operating responsibly as a licensed venue. Senior members from [] regularly attend Carlton Lounge for social sports events, and I can personally attest to the professional and well-managed environment they provide. We have never experienced or witnessed any antisocial behaviour linked to the premises, and the management team is proactive in ensuring a safe and welcoming space for their customers.

 

Carlton Lounge is more than just a hospitality venue, it is a place where people feel safe, supported, and valued. The team behind it is actively engaged in fostering community spirit. Their dedication to upholding licensing conditions, managing their establishment professionally, and supporting local initiatives speaks volumes about their role within our neighbourhood.


I firmly believe that the licensing authority should recognise the long-standing commitment of Carlton Lounge to compliance, community enrichment, and responsible venue management. Their contributions extend far beyond their premises, positively shaping the lives of young people and strengthening our local area.


Monday, 28 November 2022

Top licensing KC wins new hearing for Review of Aura Bar and Restaurant's licence. 3,681 sign petition to close The Aura. Premises have 'safety concerns' over threats made against them.

 

The Licensing and Entertainment Sub-Committee of Brent Council is not a committee that usually attracts attention, but today's hearing was an exception. The agenda was an application by the police for a 'Fully Expedited Review' of the Premises Licence for the Aura lounge and bar in Harrow Road, Sudbury.

This followed serious crime and disorder involving fighting on the 30th of October 2022 when a male lost his life. There was a report from the Metropolitan Police and Brent Licensing Officer. Residents and local ward councillors supplied evidence with a 259-signature petition opposing the licence and letters in support of the premises had also been received.

In fact, Sudbury ward councillor and Sudbury resident Paul Lorber said in his introductory remarks that this petition had been started by the family and there was also an on-line petition with more than 2,000 signatures (actually 3,681 today Nov 29th LINK).

It became clear when. in the introductions we heard that a KC, Philip Colvin, was representing the premises, that this was no ordinary hearing.  The website 11KBW describes Colvin:

Philip is one of the country’s most eminent licensing KCs. His practice spans all fields of licensing, including alcohol and entertainment, gambling, sexual entertainment, taxis, sport, and the security industry. He acts across the board for national and independent operators, national regulators, local authorities and local residents and community groups.

He has been ranked in the top tier for licensing in the Legal 500 and Chambers directories for many years.  As one client put it, “There isn’t anyone who comes close to his stature” (Legal 500 2020)

He is Patron of the Institute of Licensing, the professional body for licensing practitioners, a board member of the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and an Associate Fellow of Westminster University’s Centre for Law, Society and Popular Culture. He is also a Recorder of the Crown Court, sitting as a Judge in jury trials in the Crown Court on a part-time basis.

Dickon Edwards, Legal Adviser to Brent Council made a statement before any evidence was presented.  He said that the Sub-Committee had received representations both from the police and the premises that the review hearing should be held in private. He said, the police are understandably concerned that there is a risk that an ongoing serious investigation might be compromised, or all their evidence be disclosed in a public forum. The premises have safety concerns in the context of a number of threats that have been made recently against them.'

He continued:

Clearly the Sub-Committee is mindful of the need for justice and the huge concern and public interest in the hearing but balancing the interest and mindful of the powers under Regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 the Sub-Committee has determined that the hearing shall be conducted in private. The Sub-Committee did consider whether a mixed hearing could be conducted and considered this to be impracticable.

The live feed was suspended while the Sub-Committee met privately and when it resumed it was clear that Philip Colvin had done his work.

In a carefully worded statement Dickon Edwards said:

The Sub-Committee has considered an application made by Mr Colvin, KC, on behalf of the premises to adjourn this review hearing and it to be heard before a reconstructed Sub-Committee, on the basis that Sub-Committee has demonstrated an apparent bias in their conduct of the hearing. They were reminded of the test for establishing bias within the case of Porter-Mcgill LINK [The Westminster Council, Shirley Porter council house sales case], that is to say whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.

Without accepting that there is, or was, any bias within the Sub-Committee or any individual members, for or against any of the parties, the Sub-Committee has determined that it is in the public interest for the hearing to be adjourned to be reheard before a differently constituted panel to ensure that any decision that is reached in due course cannot be subject to any such doubts or concerns.