Agenda and minutes

Members were asked to suspend Standing Order 5.4 – the Member who is presiding at the meeting must do so from the specified location for the meeting and cannot join by video conferencing.

 

The requisite two thirds of Members present agreed to suspend Standing Order 5.4 to enable discussion of reports on the Agenda.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Robin Currie, Mary-Jean Devon, George Freeman, Donald MacMillan and Roderick McCuish.

There were no declarations of interest.

Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given options for participating in the meeting.  The options available were by Video Call, by Audio Call or by written submission.  For this hearing both the Licence Holder and Police Scotland opted to proceed by way of written submissions and copies of these were circulated to the Committee in a Supplementary Agenda Pack for this hearing.

 

The Chair invited the Council’s Solicitor, Mr McMillan, to advise of Police Scotland’s written submission. 

 

Mr McMillan advised that this was a continuation from the hearing held on 22 June 2020 where the Committee had agreed to continue consideration of the matter to allow Mr MacIntyre to be legally represented following a request to that effect.  Mr McMillan then read out the complaint by Police Scotland as contained at Appendix 1 to the report by the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support.

 

POLICE SCOTLAND

 

Mr McMillan referred to the letter from Police Scotland dated  5 May 2020 that referred to a request from the Chief Constable that, in terms of Paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 1 of the Act that the Licensing Committee suspends Mr MacIntyre’s licence.  Mr MacMillan advised that the Chief Constable complained in terms of Paragraph 11(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Act that Mr MacIntyre was no longer a fit and proper person to hold the licence.  In addition, Mr McMillan advised that the Chief Constable was requesting the Committee to order the immediate suspension of the licence, in terms of Paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 1 of the Act, on the grounds that the carrying on of the activity to which the licence relates was likely to cause a serious threat to public order or public safety.  In support of the Chief Constable’s request Mr McMillan read out the details of an incident which occurred on 29 April 2020.  As the matter was sub-judice, the Chief Constable was unable to comment further at this time.

 

Mr MacMillan then read out an email received from the Chief Constable dated 18 August 2020 confirming that as far as they were aware Mr MacIntyre’s trial date had been set for a date in October, however, due to the serious nature of the charge they were still requesting the immediate suspension of Mr MacIntyre’s licence.

 

The Chair then invited Mr McMillan to advise of the licence holder’s written submission.

 

LICENCE HOLDER

 

Mr McMillan read out the email submission received from Mr MacIntyre’s representative, Mr Murdanaigum, as follows –

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I wish to confirm that Mr. Damien McIntyre has Sheriff Court proceedings at Oban Sheriff Court on 19 October 2020.

 

Since this matter is in the Sheriff Court, it would be inappropriate and against the rules of natural justice to have it heard and considered before another jurisdiction. This may, of course, affect any fair hearing that he is entitled to.

In this respect, as mentioned to you, I would respectfully request that members of the Planning, Protective Services, and Licensing Committee defer any consideration of this matter until disposal thereof on 19 October 2020.

 

I am grateful for your assistance. I would also appreciate if you would kindly advise me of the new date fixed by the Council.

 

The Chair then invited Members questions.

 

 

MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS

 

The Chair referred to the representation received from Mr Murdanaigum and the reference made to the Sherriff Court.  He asked Mr McMillan what the significance of the Sheriff Court was.  Mr McMillan advised that as it was a criminal matter, Mr Murdanaigum was concerned that any decision made by the Committee to suspend the licence could jeopardise the outcome of the criminal case.  He referred to the differences between the court case which was a criminal matter and the matter before the committee which was a civil matter and the different standards of proof for each.

 

Councillor Colville asked Mr McMillan if there was information available on the alcohol readings taken and if that could be taken into account when considering the matter.  Mr McMillan advised that Police Scotland had not disclosed this information but this was something that could be requested.  Councillor Colville commented that it would be useful to know the reading regardless of the outcome of the court case.

 

Councillor Trail asked Mr McMillan what he understood from the request from Mr Murdanaigum to inform him of the new date fixed by the Council and if this meant that he had made an assumption that the matter would be continued.  Mr McMillan replied that he understood this to read that if the Committee agreed to continue the matter then Mr Murdanaigum would like to be informed of such date.

 

Councillor Moffat asked that if something was sub-judice did it mean that the Committee were required to make a decision before the case came to court.  The Chair advised that the Committee were required to consider the complaint received from Police Scotland which was a separate matter to the court case.

 

DEBATE

 

The Chair advised that he felt there was a reluctance by the Committee to make a decision on a matter which was awaiting a court date in case the person was found not guilty and that this was due to a decision of the Committee in the past.  He referred to the point made by Councillor Colville in respect of the alcohol readings, as that type of information could have a bearing on the decision made by the Committee.

 

The Chair referred to the new legislation which allowed for the provision of written submissions instead of participation through audio or video advising that he felt this would be better removed as the Committee did not have the ability to access information the way they would by being able to question the licence holder and Police Scotland directly.

 

Councillor Moffat advised that the Committee were reluctant to make a decision before the trial; as once the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.