Brede Pub Keeps License After Drinks Served Outside In Lockdown

A pub landlady has been removed as its designated premises supervisor (DPS) following a hearing last week. 

Last Friday (August 21), a panel of Rother District councillors held a hearing to review the licensing of the Red Lion Inn in Brede, in light of allegations that it breached the coronavirus lockdown one weekend in May.

After retiring to consider the evidence, and after a delay of some days, the panel chose to remove landlady Natalie Campbell-Crabbe as the pub’s DPS.

When the panel published its decision, a council spokesman said:

“The panel were satisfied the council had made it perfectly clear there would be consequences were a business to defy the regulations.

“In that regard, the panel considered it was an appropriate sanction that Ms Campbell-Crabb should be removed as the DPS for the Red Lion, Brede.

“The panel were satisfied, on balance, that should a different DPS be appointed to the premises, then the premises should be able to operate more responsibly and ensure that the business survived the difficult times that lay ahead.

“It was noted by the panel that should any further report be made in respect of such failings of the licensing objectives at the premises, that the members of a future panel may be less generous in their approach to future failings.”

During the hearing, the panel heard testimony that the pub had served alcohol to a group of around ten to 15 people on VE Day (Friday, May 8).

This included testimony from PC Jeffrey — one of the Sussex Police officers who had been called to the pub on the day.

PC Jeffrey spoke of a conversation he had with Mrs Campbell-Crabb and her partner Phillip Graham, in which the pair said the drinks had been served as part of an event raising funds for the NHS. 

He said the pair did not consider that this meant the pub had been open or trading and had hosted the event as they didn’t want to see the beer go to waste and thought giving the beer away in return for a donation was not a breach of the regulation.

He also said he saw Ms Campbell-Crabbe drinking spirits during their conversation and believed she had been intoxicated.

At the hearing a lawyer acting on behalf of the pub put forward a different version of events, arguing that the event had been a VE Day celebration at the couple’s home, similar to others taking place in the village. 

It was during this, the lawyer said, that Mr Graham decided to give away beer, which he believed was going to go off, in exchange for donations to the NHS.

The lawyer said Mr Graham had not been charging any particular sums but had accepted donations in return for drinks.

The sum raised on the day was a little over £100.

The pub accepted that this had been a breach of the regulations and apologised for it.

However, the lawyer added that those present were all from two households, with each group socially distancing from the other.

He also said Mrs Campbell-Crabbe, who had been at another VE celebration elsewhere in the village, was not aware of the donations.

The panel appeared to give little weight to this mitigation, however.

In the decision notice, a council spokesman said:

“The panel found, on balance, that all the drinkers were probably not from two households only.

"They were satisfied that the speed with which the patrons fled the scene when the police arrived demonstrated that those individuals knew what they were doing was not permitted.

“Furthermore, the panel were satisfied that Mr Graham was doing nothing at all to break up those unlawful gatherings and thereby undermining the licensing objectives with little concern. 

“The panel were satisfied that the evidence showed the premises were selling or supplying alcohol, in defiance of the regulations, irrespective of the attempt to collect charitable donations. 

“The panel were of the opinion that had such a collection been made at the time, the money would have been given, and receipted, before the hearing, which was some three months after the collection.”

The spokesman added:

“The panel were satisfied, on balance, that the evidence of PC Jeffrey in connection with the intoxication of Ms Campbell-Crabb was believable and showed little regard for the responsibilities she owed considering the serious breaches that were taking place at the premises.

“The panel were told she had not been at the premises all day, but the panel were satisfied on the evidence provided she certainly was at the premises when PC Jeffrey attended and yet she had done little, if anything, to put matters in order, as expected by the licensing authority.”