Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
St James’s None* None**	Mubao Beauty, Basement, 26 Wardour St, WID 6QL	Renewal of a Special Treatment Licence	21/06078/LIMSTR
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

 

WCC LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 6

 

Thursday 23 September 2021

 

Membership:           Councillor Jim Glen (Chair), Councillor Louise Hyams and Councillor Maggie Carman

 

Officer Support:       Legal Advisor:         Horatio Chance

                                Policy Officer:          Kerry Simpkin

                                Committee Officer:  Sarah Craddock

                                Presenting Officer:  Kevin Jackaman

 

Application for a Renewal of a Special Treatment Premises Licence under Part 11 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 21/06078/LIMSTR

 

Full Decision

 

Premises

 

Mubao Beauty

Basement

26 Wardour Street

London

W1D 6QL

 

Applicant

 

Mubao Beauty

Represented by Nigel Carter (Cater Consultancy)

 

Ward

 

St James’s

 

Summary of Application

 

The Sub-Committee has determined an application for a Renewal of a Special Treatment Premises Licence under Part 2 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 (“The Act”) as follows:-

 

·       To allow massages and facials to be provided at the Premises to men and women during separate sessions.

 

·       To provide massage treatment from 11.00 until 00:00 on every day of the week (including Sundays).

 

 

 

 

Representations Received

 

·       Metropolitan Police Service (PC Adam Deweltz, PC Reaz Guerra, PC Jenny Fletcher and PC Jonathan Cheung)

·       Licensing Authority (Steve Rowe and City Inspector Kay Cummings)

 

Summary of issues raised by objectors

 

·       The Metropolitan Police Service are concerned that the Premises have been or are being improperly conducted.  Intelligence gathered shows the Premises may be involved in offering sexual services to its customers.  There is also concern for the wellbeing of members of staff at the Premises.

·       The Licensing Authority have the same concerns as the Police as well as the numerous alleged breaches of conditions on the current Premises Licence.

 

SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS

 

Kevin Jackaman, Presenting Officer, summarised the application for the purposes of the Sub-Committee. He advised that this was an application for a Renewal of a Special Treatment Premises Licence under Part 11 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991. The Sub-Committee noted that representations had been received from the Metropolitan Police Service and the Licensing Authority.  The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises are in the St James’s Ward.

 

Mr Nigel Carter, representing the Applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee and introduced the application. He apologised for Ms Liang’s absence due to her being in China and the covid restrictions on travelling.  He further advised how shocked Ms Liang had been regarding the Police’s allegations made against Mubao Beauty dating back to 2016 and the objection to the renewal of the licence.  He confirmed that all the allegations were denied and that it was unacceptable that the Applicant was now only being made aware of these allegations some four years later.  He added that if the allegations had been brought to the attention of the Applicant at the time, she would have been able to investigate, and take the appropriate action . 

 

Mr Carter advised of the layout of the Basement as well as the whole building at 26 Wardour Street.  He added that there had always been Chinese girls soliciting outside of the shop ever since it had opened. He added that no action had ever been taken by the Council or the Police.  He explained that each therapist had gained a qualification to give massage and had signed an undertaken not to offer sexual services.  He added there was also signage informing customers not to ask for sexual services.

 

Mr Carter referred to the witness statement made on 5 November 2019 contained at pages 157 to 158 of the report which set out that a man was offered a happy ending at the Premises. Mr Cater advised that this was pure speculation and one that the Applicant could not investigate as it occurred in 2019.  He emphasised that the Police could not have considered the incident that serious as they had not objected to the renewal of the licence in 2020 or informed the Licensing Authority. He outlined that the statement could have also been made by a disgruntled customer, a competitor or a customer who had requested a sexual service and who had been turned down.

 

Mr Carter referred to the witness statement made on the 19 July contained at pages 159-160 of the report and advised that therapists were not allowed to approach people. He read out the last sentence of the statement ‘ I have always understood that this business is offering sexual services to men’ and emphasised that the whole statement was pure speculation and should be disregarded by the Sub-Committee.  Mr Carter then referred to the witness statement at page 147 of the report by PC Oduro-Adjwubi and advised that he was unclear why the Police had not followed the girls into the Premises and why no statement had been taken from the male that had informed the Police that he had been offered sexual services on the 12 May 2021.  Mr Carter stated that the Police had failed to obtain any credible evidence but were instead relying on third hand hear say to object to the renewal of the licence.

 

Mr Carter referred to the Dissemination Report contained at pages 161 to 168 of the report which detailed the numerous visits to the Premises by the City Inspectors dating back to 2016 which alleged that the girls working at the Premises had been touting for customers or soliciting for sex.  He advised that at no point had the Applicant or the Licensing Service been contacted to discuss these allegations and that no objection to the renewal of the Premises licence had been made on the three previous occasions. He added that this was very surprising as running a brothel and living off illegal earnings were serious matters. He highlighted that the evidence before the Sub-Committee was very weak and consisted of hearsay evidence only.  He added that if the Police had been seriously concerned, they would have conducted a covert purchase operation to see if sexual services were being offered at the Premises.  He advised that no such operation had taken place and there had been no complaints from the Public or Council officers which was very surprising as the alleged activities had been occurring over a four- and half-year period.

 

Mr Carter referred to pages 137 -140 of the report which contained PC Guerra’s witness statement dated 21 July 2021 and refuted that the conditions attached to the licence had been breached as there were no statements that sexual services had been offered, money had changed hands and the unknown Chinese females referred to as loitering outside of the Premises had only been seen and not heard by officers.  He highlighted that when the City Inspector had visited the Premises, they had been satisfied that the girls working there were trained therapists.  He outlined the meeting that had taken place between the City Inspectors and Ms Liang in 2017 regarding the Chinese ladies standing outside of the Premises and emphasised that Ms Liang had considered that the matter had been quickly resolved.

 

Mr Carter concluded by advising that there was no evidence that the Premises was being used as a brothel as none of the alleged incidents had been fully investigated at the time.  He added that there had also been no complaints from the public and therefore the Licensing Service nor the Police could demonstrate that nuisance was being caused or that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person.  He further advised that this was a very serious matter and emphasised that Ms Liang had nothing to hide and had done nothing wrong.  The Sub-Committee noted that Mr Carter had been instructed to attend the Sub-Committee alone.

 

PC Adam Deweltz, representing the Metropolitan Police Service, advised that the Police had maintained their representation as the Premises may be involved in offering sexual services to customers and there was concern for the wellbeing of members of staff.  The Police had been alerted by PC Cheung from the Modern Slavery Team that the Premises was being used as a brothel and that staff members were offering sexual services which were serious breaches to the Premises Licence.  He then referred to the statement made on the 3 November  stating  that a man had been offered sexual services at the Premises.  He added that in addition the Chinese Neighbourhood Team also had concerns about the treatment of the staff at the Premises as outlined in their statement on page 159 in the report .  PC Deweltz advised that there had not been sufficient evidence between 2016- 2018 to object to the renewal applications for the Premises Licence and only in 2019 had more intelligence gathering taken place.  He advised that when officers visited a venue the Police officer’s written report would get disseminated to relevant parties; unfortunately, the report on these Premises had not been received by the Westminster Licensing Police. 

 

PC Jonathan Cheung, representing the Modern Slavery Team, advised that his unit had only been informed at the beginning of this year to investigate the exploitation of labour workers and sex workers.  He referred to the numerous intelligent statements in the report before the Sub-Committee and advised that his unit had discovered several reports that indicated that this venue had been offering sexual services since 2016.  He further advised that a Ms Liang was also known on their system as running a former brothel. PC Jonathan Cheung stated that it was difficult to obtain witness statements for these types of sensitive issues as people were relucent to come forward and  talk to the Police.

 

PC Jenny Fletcher, Dedicated Ward Officer for West End and China Town, advised that on the 22 April she saw two females approaching males on Wardour Street who then took the men back to 26 Wardour Street where one female went upstairs with one male and the other female went downstairs with the other male.  PC Fletcher stated that there had been no grounds for the Police to enter the Premises.  PC Fletcher further advised that on the 11 June she had visited the Premises and was presented firstly with false documents from one worker and then, when the documents were queried, presented with their correct details and documents. PC Fletcher advised that because of a duty of care owed the names of the people would not be revealed to the Applicant. 

 

PC Deweltz requested that the Sub Committed did not renew the Premises Licence as they had no confidence that the Premises were being correctly operated.

 

Steve Rowe, representing the Licensing Authority, advised that the Licensing Authority had maintained their representation on the grounds of alleged breaches of the conditions on the current licence and on the information from the City Inspectors.  He introduced Kay Cummings, City Inspector, to the Sub-Committee in order that she could report her findings to the Sub-Committee.

 

Ms Kay Cummings referred and read out her Witness Statement contained at pages 169 to 178 of the report which had been gathered from Council’s Inspection records.  The Sub-Committee noted the following points:

 

·       City Inspectors had last carried out a full inspection of the Premises in 2019 where several concerns as listed on pages 171 and 172 were raised with the duty manager at the Premises.

·       On the 25 September 2019 City Inspectors and the Police visited the Premises regarding the upstairs flats, however, then decided to carry out a check of the licence Premises in the basement.  They found that the CCTV was broken, that there was no recorded list of clients and there was confusion on which girls were therapists who worked at the Premises or just  friends of the therapists.

·       On the 24 June 2020 a visit was undertaken to the Premises however the Premises was found to be closed in accordance with Covid Regulations.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that there had been breaches of the conditions however there had been nothing noted about sexual services taking place on the Premises.  Ms Cummings read out the Minutes from a meeting held between Mr Keegan and the Applicant.  The Minutes stated that Mr Keegan had advised Ms Liang that if considerable improvements were not made to the operation of the Premises, he would oppose the renewal of her licence.  The Minutes further stated that Mr Keegan had considered that any soliciting that was going on was being carried out in the upstairs flats and not linked to the licensed Premises in the basement of the Premises. 

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Ms Cummings advised that there were no details in the Licensing system that indicated that the upstairs flats were linked to the licensed Premises in the basement.  Ms Cummings advised that the City Inspectors did not know who owned the flats, however, the Sub-Committee noted that the flats had nothing to do with the hearing today.

 

In response to questions from the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee, Mr Carter advised that there were certainly concerns in 2019 regarding the operation of the Premise, however, he had not been informed of any other issues since then, and as far as he was concerned the Premises was operating within the conditions of the Premises Licence.  He further advised that as the names of the ladies seen on the street were redacted in the statements, the Applicant was unable to confirm or deny that they worked for Mubao Beauty.  Mr Carter emphasised that there was no evidence to suggest that Ms Liang was operating a brothel and no evidence to suggest either that the Chinese ladies observed soliciting on the streets had anything to do with the Premises.  He requested that the Sub-Committee dismiss the case against Ms Liang based on the lack of evidence.

 

Conclusion

 

The Sub-Committee in reviewing the evidence before it found that these serious allegations were not  clearly shown to be associated with the Premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises should remain under close inspection by the Police and the Licensing Authority as any allegations as serious as modern-day slavery must result in court proceedings to rescue the individuals concerned. 

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Licensing Renewal application process is not the correct forum for these matters to be resolved and urges the Police to continue with its ongoing investigations in order to get to the root cause of these allegations made against the Premises and where relevant the appropriate criminal charges are brought by the Police.

 

The Sub-Committee realises that its powers are limit to those contained with the Act where an application has been submitted for the renewal of a Special Treatments Premises Licence.

 

Having carefully considered the committee papers and the submissions made by all of the parties, both orally and in writing, the Sub-Committee has decided, after taking into account all of the individual circumstances of this case: - 

          

1.     To grant permission for the renewal of the special treatment premises licence as applied for.

 

2.     That the Licence is subject to a period of 12 months.

 

3.     That the licence is subject to the usual standard conditions.

 

4.     That the licence is subject to the additional special conditions as specified below.

 

Special Conditions imposed by the Committee after a hearing:-

          

5.     Special treatments shall only be provided between 11:00 and 23:00

 

6.     At all times of trading there shall be a duty manager within the venue who is 

authorised in writing for the purpose by the holder of the licence.  The duty manager shall immediately make themselves known to the police officer or officer of the Fire Authority, or any authorised officer of the Council (whose written authority will be provided on request).  The duty manager shall be a person who has a good command of the English Language, so that he/she can engage with visiting officers effectively and shall have been properly trained before being left in charge of the venue.  The duty manager shall ensure that all conditions of the licence are complied with at all times of trading.

          

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

23 September 2021