The case involving late-night venue Wonderland in Sutton saw police officers claim that the venue sold drinks at lower prices and served them quickly; and served drunken customers and then eject them “uncaringly”.
However, a report from the licensing sub-committee said: “No part of that assertion was substantiated either by way of CCTV or credible oral evidence.
“Under cross-examination and questioning Constable [Jason] Hitchcock frequently failed to answer the questions put to him. On the whole we found him not to be a credible witness.”
It added: “The CCTV evidence showed the door staff to be vigilant, to deal with any trouble in a calm manner and to show concern for vulnerable customers, monitoring them outside the premises.”
The sub-committee explained that head doorman Laurence Dickson and intox marshall Kamila Mouloud were regarded as “very credible witnesses”.
It said: “We regarded their supervision of their responsibilities as competently and effectively carried out and more consistent with what was shown on the CCTV than the narrative and interpretation advanced by the police licensing officers.”
The sub-committee added that the police presented it with 1,800 pages of documents, and “substantial numbers of those pages contained no evidence whatsoever”. The police also submitted 400 pages of recent call-out and crime reports the day before the hearing.
The sub-committee said that the evidence “contained little or no recognition of actions taken by the premises licence holder in response to police concerns”.
The sub-committee added: “In submission for the police it was suggested that the police licensing officers had sought to put a fair and balanced picture and had been “scrupulously fair” in the way that the schedule had been put forward. Unfortunately, we were not satisfied that that was so.
“We were invited by counsel for the police to consider the possibility of a suspension of the licence or a change of the designated premises supervisor. We did not feel that either was appropriate on the facts of the review and in the light of our opinion on the evidence.”