Agenda item

Summary Review of the Premises Licence for the Three Legs Hotel, 9 The Headrow, Leeds, LS1 6PU

The report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory, advises Members that West Yorkshire Police have made an application under section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003, for the summary review of the premises licence in respect of the Three Legs Hotel, 9 The Headrow, Leeds, LS1 6PU.


The report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory, requested consideration of an application made by West Yorkshire Police under Section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003, for the summary review of the premises licence in respect of the Three Legs Hotel, 9 The Headrow, Leeds, LS1 6PU. West Yorkshire Police were of the opinion that the premises were associated with serious crime or serious disorder, or both and the Licensing Authority was under a duty to hold a review hearing in accordance with Section 53C of the Licensing Act 2003.


The report outlined the outcome of an interim steps hearing on 13th February 2024 where the conditions of the licence were modified with immediate effect pending the substantive hearing of the review application.


The report included the following documents:

·  Copy of the Premises Licence

·  Copy of the Summary Review application submitted by West Yorkshire Police

·  Copy of the certificate signed by Superintendent Rutter confirming the view of West Yorkshire Police that the premises was associated with serious crime or serious disorder, or both

·  Copy of the Interim Steps Hearing 13 February 2024 Decision Notice

·  Map showing the location of the Three Legs Hotel

·  Copy of a representation submitted by the Designated Premises Supervisor

·  Copy of Section 12 of the Section 182 Guidance (Summary Reviews).


Following the despatch of the agenda, the Sub Committee received the following supplementary information:

·  Additional Information supplied by Greene King

·  Additional information supplied by the Designated Premises Supervisor

·  Additional information supplied by West Yorkshire Police (WYP), including some information which was designated as exempt from publication under the provisions of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 (7) as it related to action taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.


The following attended the hearing:

PC Andrew Clifford, West Yorkshire Police – Summary Review Applicant

Mr Bob Patterson, West Yorkshire Police (Observing)


Mr Piers Warne, TLT Solicitors – Representing the Premise Licence Holder - Greene King Brewing & Retail Ltd.

Mr Chris Gott - Greene King Brewing & Retail Ltd.

Mr Jim Outhwaite, Greene King Brewing & Retail Ltd


Mr Michael Balmer, Weightmans LLP – Representing the Designated Premises Supervisor

Mrs Deborah Fountain/Lacey - DPS

Mr Sean Fountain – Husband of the DPS (Observer)

Mr Don Mort – Local Democracy Reporter (Observer)


The Legal Officer outlined the procedure for the Review hearing which would deal with the Interim Steps hearing and the Summary Review. The parties agreed the time limit for submissions and Mr Balmer for the DPS indicated he had brought clearer copies of items DL1 and DL2 from their submission to table if needed.


The Licensing Officer outlined the report and summary review application and drew Members attention to the outcome of the Interim Steps hearing held 13 February 2024. Members were advised that WYP intended to show CCTV footage of the time of the incident at the premises on 2nd February 2024, and at that point of the hearing, the Sub Committee may resolve to view the footage in private session. Members were also advised of the options available in terms of actions the Sub Committee could take.


The Sub Committee heard from the representative of West Yorkshire Police (WYP)

·  The Three Legs premises had a poor reputation and was known to be a place for people with a propensity for violence to be intoxicated. Over intoxication appeared to be an aggravating factor in the 02/02/24 incident and was an issue which had previously been drawn to the attention of the DPS. However, the pub was very profitable for Greene King.

·  The severity of the two stabbing incidents on 02/02 were an escalation of previous incidents and immediate intervention was required. The statistics included within the written submission provided a snapshot of incidents over previous years at the premises, although previously there had not been an incident serious enough to require a Review.

·  WYP had engaged with the premises and discussed the crimes reported during 2020-22. The previous DPS had begun to contact BACIL more often and issues had seemed to stabilise before the 02/02/24 incident.

·  The new DPS appeared to believe that issues/incidents had peaked, however the Incident Log at the Three Legs did not tally with WYP understanding of the crimes occurring on/associated with the premises. The premises continued to require a lot of support from WYP.

·  WYP understood that the DPS had refused a request from Greene King to utilise the rear outdoor area for customers, as she preferred to be able to see all of the customers from the bar area. WYP suggested that this revealed what the operator knew about the customers.

·  Following the Interim Steps hearing WYP had visited the premises and found non-compliance with the condition requiring a full search of patrons.

·  WYP suggested that Greene King had not expressed concern for the victims of the 02/02 incidents but had focussed on the reputation of the company and should the Sub Committee suspend or revoke the premises licence, was likely to appeal that decision.

·  In cases where workable solutions could be identified, such as modified or new conditions, WYP would suggest them, however this was not such a case. The PLH now held responsibility to offer solutions for WYP or Members to consider. The Three Legs Hotel was a stain on Leeds reputation as a safe city. As such WYP requested the licence be revoked.


WYP indicated their intention to present CCTV footage providing views inside the premises and street views as part of their representation. In order to view the footage, the Sub Committee

RESOLVED – That the meeting enter closed session to enable the Sub Committee and parties to the hearing to view CCTV footage relevant to the incident of 2nd February 2024.


Having viewed the CCTV footage, the Sub Committee resumed open session.


The Sub Committee then heard from Mr P Warne, representing Greene King Brewing & Retail Ltd, the Premise Licence Holder. Mr Warne’s submission included the following matters:

·  Greene King refuted the assertion made by WYP that the PLH did not take these matters seriously. The Three Legs Hotel was part of Greene King’s leased pub estate, and Greene King had a landlord relationship with the DPS who managed the pub independently of Greene King.

·  The additional submission from Greene King presented measures which they felt were appropriate to impose on the premises licence. These included:

-  reduced hours of licensable activities - 10:00 to 23:00 Sunday to Wednesday and 10:00 to 00:00 (midnight) Thursday to Saturday, with the premises to close 30 minutes later. Late night refreshment to start at 23:00 daily and cease when the premises closes to the public.

-  Additional conditions proposed included implementation of a serious incident policy and staff training; police to be notified of any violent inicidents; implementation of a search policy and use of electronic search wands, at least 3 door staff to be present from 19.00 hours till close Friday and Saturday and during non-standard hours; and a radio communication system to be implemented on site.

-  The removal of some embedded restrictions (conditions 9 to 33) and other duplicate conditions (71 and 34).

·  The CCTV footage had showed a patron expelling vape, but it was not illegal to vape inside a pub as pubs could set their own rules.

·  WYP had not provided Greene King with follow up information on the 02/02 incident which had led to the Summary Review. It was reported that there had been no incidents either prior to, or following, the 02/02 incident.

·  It was not the case that the pub management were ineffective - the DPS had taken proactive action since the 02/02 incident and had met with WYP Sergeant Secker on 4th March.

·  The DPS had also met with WYP in September 2023 to discuss the issue of drunkenness and shoplifting at the premises. The emails submitted in the additional information provided an indication of how matters had improved since then. WYP had not had cause to contact the PLH between September and the 02/02 incident.

·  WYP presented a case that the Three Legs Hotel was a high crime pub with no solution other than to revoke the premises licence. The PLH did not believe there was sufficient evidence to support that.

·  In respect of the additional evidence provided by WYP just prior to the hearing which included a schedule listing incidents attributed to the premises, it was suggested that this had no provenance, as the dates and descriptions of incidents did not provide sufficient detail for the PLH or DPS to comment on. The schedule had a low evidential value as, for example, on 28/12, one crime was triplicated, and it was believed that a lot of the incidents were not directly associated with the Three Legs but occurred outside the premises with the Three Legs used to identify the location for the emergency services – the incidents listed could have resulted in no further action being taken.

·  WYP had not provided the notes of meetings with the DPS held before and after the February incident, copies of the email messages between WYP and the DPS during 2023 nor records of any actions undertaken by the DPS since Interim Steps.


In conclusion Mr Warne stated that the PLH would continue to work with WYP, but that given the submission by WYP and the contents of the CCTV footage, the position of the PLH was that the measures proposed in the PLH submission were appropriate and proportionate.


During discussions with Members, the following additional information was provided:

-  The schedule of incidents submitted by WYP should include more detail - correct dates, a link to the relevant incident report such as a CRIS report, the information recorded at the time of the call and the outcome, i.e. did the incident occur inside or outside the Three Legs, if the report indicated a Domestic Violence incident, were the victim and/or perpetrator at the Three Legs prior to the incident.

-  In response to a comment that the PLH offered to reduce opening hours by one hour, yet the 02/02 incident occurred at 20:00 hours, Mr Warne emphasised that incidents could happen at any time with different outcomes and gave the example of a serious incident at Revolución De Cuba which had not subsequently been subject to the Review process. The PLH had taken the view that later opening at the Three Legs Hotel encouraged more people to come the pub later on, so closing earlier would discourage that.

-  With regards to the door staff and bar staff and the WYP concern over alcohol being served to patrons who were already drunk, the proposed third door staff would “roam” throughout the premises and not be static on the door. All staff were retrained after the February incident and serving alcohol to anyone who was already drunk was now a dismissal offence.



The Sub Committee then heard from Mr Balmer representing Mrs Fountain, the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) who began by stating that Mrs Fountain, like Greene King, treated every incident of violence very seriously and particularly the incident of 2nd February. Mr Balmer provided the following information:

·  WYP had stated that the pub management was ineffective to make changes, yet after the 02/02 incident the DPS closed the pub early and ensured that staff were retrained – these measures were implemented before the 08/02 meeting with WYP. Following which, Greene King provided further training to staff. 4 radios were acquired so that staff and door staff can easily communicate between each other.

·  WYP stated that the search policy imposed by the Interim Steps hearing had not been adhered to as patrons were not searched 100% of the time. The policy drawn up after the Interim Steps Hearing required “door staff to undertake the following when in place” and, as door staff were not on duty every night, a search of 100% of patrons was not achievable.

·  All conditions imposed by the Interim Steps Hearing had been implemented and there had been no issues from the clientele and no further incidents requiring WYP intervention since the 02/02 incident.

·  On 23/02 when the DPS was made aware that the door staff were not searching 100% of the patrons entering the premises, she contacted the door staff company whilst WYP were conducting their visit to make her displeasure known. DL5 and DL5a) of the additional submission from the DPS included emails detailing the apology from the door staff company and evidence that a new door staff team was now in place. The door staff in place on 02/02 had been dismissed by the door staff company.


·  There was little evidential value in the schedule of incidents provided by WYP. The DPS had reviewed the schedule but had found it difficult to identify specific events which could be attributed to The Three Legs due to the lack of detail. For example, the schedule listed 6 incidents in 40 minutes on 21/12 but there was no corresponding record of 6 incidents at the Three Legs on that date, so it was possible that these were duplicate entries for just one incident. An incident recorded on 08/07/23 related to a missing person under the age of 18, yet no further detail is provided. The Section 18 incident of 02/02 was also recorded twice which may be due to there being two victims, but more detail was required to fully understand how the schedule was devised and how incidents were attributed to the Three Legs. The schedule also omitted who made the calls to WYP. Staff of the Three Legs had called WYP on some occasions, but the schedule did not reflect those calls.

·  The issue of shoplifting was discussed at the WYP/DPS meeting in September 2023, and situation was much improved since then. Copies of email exchanges between the DPS and WYP (at DL2 and DL3 of the additional material) indicated anecdotally that WYP was “hearing good things” about the pub and this was at odds with the case now presented by WYP.


Mr Balmer concluded by emphasising that the DPS supported the measures proposed by Greene King.


In response to queries from the Sub Committee, the following information was provided:

-  With regards to comments previously made at the Interim Steps hearing that the patrons were not as intoxicated as WYP made out, the CCTV footage showed patrons’ behaviour and also showed that the door staff had intervened on 02/02. In relation to that incident, the atmosphere in the pub did calm down for a while but had very quickly escalated to the point where a patron was stabbed. It was difficult to say whether door staff could have made a decision to intervene in such a short space of time.

-  The door staff on duty on 02/02 when the incident occurred and when CCTV showed patrons passing cigarettes between them in the pub doorway had been dismissed.


The Sub Committee then invited parties to sum up.


WYP presented a summary of their case and responded to comments as follows:

-  Referring to Revolución De Cuba, it was not appropriate to raise other premises at this hearing.

-  It was quite common for stab victims not to realise that they were injured, but the CCTV footage did show a patch suggested to be blood from the wound on the victim’s top, and the patch grew over time.

-  The schedule of incidents was presented to provide an idea of what happened at the pub, it was not intended to be a full 12 month report. WYP were alive to the issue of “landmarking” as pubs are used as landmarks when people report incidents to the police. The schedule presented recorded crimes and any reports which identified the Three Legs just as landmark or related to the bus stop immediately outside the premises had been discounted. With regards to the missing person report, this related to an under-age female missing person found drunk in the Three Legs toilets.

-  In terms of concerns over duplication, there could be several victims and several crimes as a result of one incident which led to multiple entries for one date, but these were not duplicates.

-  The Three Legs had been given a lifeline by the decision of the Interim Steps hearing not to suspend the premises licence, however issues remained at the premises which needed to be resolved. WYP were of the view that the conditions imposed in relation to searching patrons had not been complied with and WYP sought revocation of the premises licence.


The representative of the PLH presented a summary of their case as follows:

·  The pub staff called WYP to the 02/02 incident and administered first aid to a victim.

·  The door staff had conducted patron searches since the Interim Steps hearing, including a “wand search” on two undercover police officers and the door staff who had not followed the instructions given by the DPS had been dismissed.

·  The schedule of crime statistics associated with the pub showed 6 incidents in 6 months but did not provide detail of the incidents nor indicate subsequent action taken by WYP.

·  The Sub Committee were directed to the relevant paragraphs 9:12 and 9.43 of the Guidance which required that it was incumbent on all responsible authorities that the representation withstand scrutiny and determination of the application should be evidence based, appropriate and proportionate. The view of the PLH was that the schedule of incidents provided by WYP would not withstand scrutiny by a Magistrates Court and that although WYP sought revocation of the premises licence, the evidence did not show that the Three Legs was the worst pub in Leeds.


The representative of the DPS presented a summary of their case as follows:


-  The DPS felt that the amended conditions and hours of operation proposed in the additional written submission by Greene King were appropriate and proportionate.

-  This was the first review of the Three Legs premises licence and the first that the DPS had been involved in. WYP stated that, historically, the pub had taken up a disproportionate amount of WYP time, however until the 02/02 incident WYP had not sought to Review the Premises Licence.

-  The DPS felt that WYP did not like the premises nor the clientele. The Sub Committee was directed to the additional submission from the DPS which included letters from patrons in support of the premises, many of whom referenced the community feel of the pub.

-  WYP had sought a suspension of the premises licence at the Interim Steps hearing, however a Sub Committee chose to modify the conditions. The modified conditions were implemented and monitored and appeared to be successful. The DPS had also implemented voluntary measures.

-  Of the 2 Licensing inspections undertaken, one found that all was in order, one found that the door staff were not searching patrons and the DPS had immediately taken action to advise the door staff company.

-  WYP had provided little evidence to support the assertion that the Three Legs would continue to be problematic. No incidents had been recorded since 02/02/24.

-  WYP had provided no justification for the Sub Committee to move away from the earlier Interim Steps hearing decision to modify the conditions and it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to revoke the Premises Licence.



The Sub Committee then deliberated the Review application in private session.


During deliberations, the Licensing Sub Committee considered the Review application and all of the written submissions from West Yorkshire Police, Greene King the Premises Licence Holder and from the Designated Premises Supervisor. Members also carefully considered the verbal submissions made at the hearing made on behalf of West Yorkshire Police and the representatives of the Premises Licence Holder and the Designated Premises Supervisor. Members also had regard to the CCTV footage they had viewed. In considering the application, the Sub Committee had regard to the Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003 and associated Guidance and the options available to them.


RESOLVED – Not to revoke the Premises Licence, but to modify the Premises Licence to incorporate the conditions proposed by the representative of the Premises Licence Holder and endorsed by the representative of the Designated Premises Supervisor.


·  The new and amended conditions are applied to support the aims of the licensing objectives.


·  The conditions as modified will apply as new Interim Steps measures until the end of the period of appeal, or until the end of the appeal process should an appeal be made.


Hours for licensable activities amended to:

10:00 to 23:00 Sunday to Wednesday

10:00 to 00:00 (midnight) Thursday to Saturday

With the premises to close 30 minutes later. Late night refreshment to start at 23:00 daily and cease when the premises closes to the public.


Additional conditions

1. A serious incident and crime scene preservation policy to be implemented and all staff trained in the policy. A copy of the policy to be available to officers and staff members behind the bar at all times. Door supervisors to be made aware of and agree to abide by the policies prior to working. A copy of the policy will be made available to the responsible authorities on request.


2. A search policy to be drawn up and implemented. All door supervisors to be trained in the policy. Electronic wands to be used as part of the search policy. When door supervisors are on duty all customers to be searched, including customers who have temporarily left the premises to smoke. A copy of the policy will be made available to the responsible authorities on request.


3. Police to be notified immediately of any incident involving violence at the premises and a record made in the incident log of the time the police were notified.


Amended 4.

a)  No fewer than 2 door staff must be used at the premises to carry out security activities from 15:00 hours until 19:00 hours on Saturdays and any day preceding a Bank Holiday

b)  No fewer than 3 door staff must be used at the premises to carry out security activities from 19:00 hours until the premises closes on Fridays, Saturdays and any day preceding a Bank Holiday

This will also apply to non-standard timings. At all other times the requirement for security staff will be risk assessed on a day to day basis. This condition can be amended by way of minor variation in agreement with West Yorkshire Police. (replace condition 64)


5. A radio communication system to be introduced at the premises to allow door supervisors (when on duty) to speak directly to the manager on duty.


Conditions to be removed:

All embedded restrictions (conditions 9 to 33)

39. All instances of crime and disorder will be reported to the police and will be kept in an incident log book. (repeats condition 71)

63. A recognised Proof of Age Policy will be enforced. (repetitive of condition 34)

64. A minimum of 2 door staff must be used at the premises to carry out security activities from 19.00 hours till close Friday and Saturday. This will also apply to non-standard timings. At all other times the requirement for security staff will be risk assessed on a day to day basis. (replaced by the new condition above)


Supporting documents: