Nude dancers no reason to strip club of drinks licence, rule judges

A NIGHTCLUB where lap-dancers were too explicit in their performances has won an appeal against the removal of its drinks licence.

The Glasgow venue lost the licence after inspectors reported a series of breaches of the city's code of practice on "dance entertainment", including performers removing bikini bottoms and having physical contact with customers.

However, judges in the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday said the breaches had nothing to do with the sale of alcohol and could not be used as a reason to refuse a licence.

The club in Drury Street was part of the Spearmint Rhino group at the time of the inspection and is currently operated as Platinum Lace by Brightcrew Ltd. Simon Warr, chief executive officer, said: "I am naturally very pleased… the decision to refuse the application was totally disproportionate."

A spokesman for Glasgow licensing board said: "We will be considering the terms of the decision."

The court heard that the premises, also formerly known as the Truffle Club, had traded for a number of years as an adult entertainment venue. In 2009, an application had to be made under the new regime of the 2005 Licensing (Scotland) Act for an existing "entertainment licence" to be converted into a "premises licence".

There was no history of complaints or disorder, and the police did not oppose the application, but Glasgow's licensing board refused it, citing infringements of its code of practice. The club's new operators, Brightcrew, lost an appeal to a sheriff, and then took the issue to the Court of Session. In the meantime, the licence remained in force.

Lord Eassie, sitting with Lords Clarke and Wheatley, said five breaches had been listed:

• The code required a risk assessment for the personal safety of dancers and while this had been done, a member of staff during a visit by a licensing standards officer had not known where the document was kept;

• Flyers, in the form of small cards, had shown the upper torsos of two women, yet any advertising was not to feature exposed breasts or genitalia;

• Drinks promotions had been e-mailed to registered patrons, but immediately withdrawn after an officer had pointed out that they conflicted with the board's policy on "happy hours" and cheap alcohol;

• An officer had seen two dancers remove their bikini bottoms to knee level. The women were from Edinburgh, where they were "accustomed to different practice";

• Several dancers made "considerable contact with patrons whilst performing", but the only contact allowed was the hand-to-hand payment of money at the end of a performance.

Richard Keen, QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, for Brightcrew, argued that the board had a single function under the 2005 Act, which was of licensing the sale of alcohol.He said that that function could not be used to effect objectives or lay down conditions which were not related to the sale of alcohol.

Lord Eassie said the code of practice had no statutory basis, and the 2005 Act limited the imposition of some conditions.

The judges said the appeal must succeed, and they sent the case back to the board for reconsideration of the application.