Door Stewards Registration Sub-committee - 11/03/2002
At a MEETING of the DOOR STEWARDS REGISTRATION SUB-COMMITTEE of THE DUNDEE CITY LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEEheld at Dundee on 11th March, 2002.
Present:-
COUNCILLORS
Lord Provost John R. LETFORD
George REGAN (Chairman)
Dave BEATTIE
Elizabeth FORDYCE
Councillor George REGAN, in the Chair.
Lord Provost John R. LETFORD was in attendance during consideration of Application Nos 1-10 and Councillor Dave BEATTIE was in attendance during consideration of Application Nos 11-23.
I LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1976 - REGULAR EXTENSION - APPLICATIONS FOR DOOR STEWARD REGISTRATION(PROVISIONAL)
There were submitted the undernoted applications
|
No |
Applicant |
|
|
|
|
1 |
DB |
|
2 |
PC |
|
3 |
SG |
|
4 |
TG |
|
5 |
RG |
|
6 |
WH |
|
7 |
JM |
|
8 |
CN |
|
9 |
SO |
|
10 |
CR |
|
11 |
PB |
|
12 |
PB |
|
13 |
ND |
|
14 |
PG |
|
15 |
GG |
|
16 |
AG |
|
17 |
PH |
|
18 |
NJ |
|
19 |
WK |
|
20 |
JMcG |
|
21 |
JM |
|
22 |
CV |
|
23 |
GA |
In the case of Application Nos 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22 and 23, the Sub-Committee was advised that the applicants were not present and agreed that the applications be dealt with in their absence.
After consideration of observations from the representative of Tayside Police, the Sub-Committee agreed that the applications be refused.
In the case of Application Nos 2 and 15 the Sub-Committee, after hearing the applicants on their own behalf and consideration of observations from the representative of Tayside Police agreed that their applications be refused.
In the case of Application No 3 the Sub-Committee gave consideration to a representation which had been submitted by the Chief Constable relative to this application. Part of the representation referred to convictions which were spent in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and after hearing the Chief Constable's representative as to their age and nature, the Sub-Committee agreed they be considered since justice could not otherwise be done.
After having heard the applicant on his own behalf, the Sub-Committee agreed that the application be refused.
In the case of Application No 7, the Sub-Committee gave consideration to a representation which had been submitted by the Chief Constable relative to this application. Part of the representation referred to convictions which were spent in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and after hearing the Chief Constable's representative as to their age and nature, the Sub-Committee agreed they be considered since justice could not otherwise be done.
After hearing an agent on behalf of the applicant the Sub-Committee agreed that the application be granted.
In the case of Application No 8 the Sub-Committee gave consideration to a representation which had been submitted by the Chief Constable relative to this application. Part of the representation referred to convictions which were spent in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and after hearing the Chief Constable's representative as to their age and nature, the Sub-Committee agreed they be considered since justice could not otherwise be done.
After having heard the applicant on his own behalf, the Sub-Committee agreed that the application be deferred to a future meeting.
In the case of Application No 9, the Sub-Committee, after noting that the applicant was not present agreed that the application be deferred to a future meeting.
In the case of Application No 16 the Sub-Committee, after hearing the applicant on his own behalf and consideration of observations from the representative of Tayside Police, agreed that the application be granted.
In the case of Application No 19 the Sub-Committee, after hearing a representative on behalf of the applicant and consideration of observations from the representative of Tayside Police, agreed that the application be granted.
In the case of Application No 20, the Sub-Committee, after hearing the applicant on his own behalf and consideration of advice from the representative of Tayside Police agreed that delegated authority be given to the Clerk to grant the application subject to the condition that there were no observations received from the Chief Constable.
In the case of Application No 21, the Sub-Committee gave consideration to a representation which had been submitted by the Chief Constable relative to this application. Part of the representation referred to convictions which were spent in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and after hearing the Chief Constable's representative as to their age and nature, the Sub-Committee agreed they be considered since justice could not otherwise be done.
After having heard the applicant on his own behalf, the Sub-Committee agreed that the application be granted.
GEORGE REGAN, Chairman.
APPENDIX II