Weymouth Duke of Cornwall court battle leaves pub landlord 'penniless'

As reported, town centre venue the Duke of Cornwall on St Edmund Street had various modifications imposed upon its licence in December 2021, after a Dorset Council licensing sub-committee accepted a noise complaint against it. 

The process was triggered on November 1, 2021, when ‘Respect Weymouth’ applied for a review of the Duke of Cornwall’s licence on several grounds, which its landlord Martin Rollings and landlady Tina Hearns appealed against in court on the basis that the review was not properly carried out.

More than a year after the summons was first issued to the council, the appeal was heard at Poole Magistrates Court this week, when Judge Robert Morgan-Jones described the venue as a “vibrant public house in the heart of Weymouth’s music scene.”

He added that its licensees are “clearly passionate about what they do,” and that although there have been historical licensing issues at the premises, it is clear they have considerable knowledge and are highly regarded.”

He said although there have been issues with noise in the past, the pub has put in measures to mitigate against this. Therefore, some of the measures imposed by Dorset Council's licensing subcommittee remain in place.

One of the issues surrounding the case was whether the council should have accepted anonymous evidence put forward by neighbour Nigel Shearing under the name ‘Respect Weymouth,’ and whether or not this was a residents’ group or a pseudonym.  

Speaking from the witness box on Wednesday, Mr Shearing described Respect Weymouth as “a private members group”. 

He claimed that Mr Rollings had been aggressive and intimidating, which was why he wanted to remain anonymous and had declined offers of mediation.

In support of the grounds for anonymity, the council’s solicitor, professor Roy Light, presented screen shots of derogatory comments aimed towards Nigel Shearing/Respect Weymouth posted by members of the public on the Duke of Cornwall’s Facebook page.

Giving evidence, Mr Rollings, who represented himself in court during the three-day hearing, said he felt the pub had been made an example of. He said he'd been angered by the fact Mr Shearing had been granted anonymity by the council, while his and his partner’s names had been “tarnished” by the council placing a sign in the pub window citing ‘protection of children from harm’ as one of the grounds for review.

Judge Morgan-Jones said the council was at fault for including protection of children from harm in the licence review. He sided with Mr Rolling’s argument that by placing this on notices in the pub’s window, the council could have given people an “inappropriate” view of the licensees, and that this had caused Mr Rollings and Ms Hearns “considerable distress which may have adversely affected their reaction to the application.”

Judge Morgan-Jones said he had “concerns about Nigel Shearing’s credibility,” after a leaked email presented as part of the evidence in court cast doubt over claims by Respect Weymouth that the council relied upon as fact during the licence review.

The judge said it would have been proper for the council to carry out checks as to the validity of names and addresses claimed to represent members of Respect Weymouth in order for due diligence and fairness to have been carried out.

A Dorset Council licensing subcommittee meeting was held in December 2021 (Image: Dorset Echo)

In the absence of such enquiries, the judge ruled that it was “wrong” for the Dorset Council licensing subcommittee to rely on the evidence from Respect Weymouth, upon which its decision to modify the licence was based.

However Mr Morgan-Jones said on the balance of probability he accepted at face value that Mr Shearing had experienced genuine problems with noise from the Duke of Cornwall, and that he was satisfied there were at least two members of Respect Weymouth who supported the application. 

He also stated it was acceptable for the council to have protected anonymity based on exceptional circumstances guidance, and was “entirely satisfied” with the council’s decision to check and process the application for licence review on the grounds of public nuisance prevention.

Evidence was also provided by Jane Williams, Dorset Council’s team leader for environmental protection. The judge praised Mrs Williams’ expertise and integrity and said her account corroborated elements of what Mr Shearing had said about noise levels. She explained that bass frequencies could cause an issue that may not necessarily show up in decibel meter readings.  

However the judge could not agree with all the conclusions reached by the sub-committee, and therefore concluded that the licensing subcommittee’s conclusion decision was wrong.

The Duke of Cornwall, St Edmund's Street (Image: Duke of Cornwall)

Ruling in favour of the Duke of Cornwall, Mr Morgan-Jones attached a number of conditions in line with some of the council’s modifications:

Live and recorded music hours will remain Monday to Thursday 11am to 11pm; Friday and Saturday 11am to 1am; bank holidays 11am to 1am, and New Year’s Eve and Christmas Eve 11am to 2am.

The judge said the council was wrong to impose a 10pm curfew on Sundays; the court has now replaced this with an 11pm finish.

No order was made for costs on either party. However Dorset Council’s solicitor said the pub’s licensees had only been partially successful and that they should therefore be made to pay the council’s solicitor fees, said to be £28,000. The judge dismissed this request.

Visibly upset over the decision to uphold reduced live music hours, Duke of Cornwall landlord Martin Rollings told the court his tenure at the pub was “finished;” that the proceedings have caused stress and ill health to him and his partner, and that they have lost in the region of £150,000 due to the reduced music hours.

“We’re finished – we’ve already been paying staff from our own personal savings,” Mr Rollings said. “There is no future for us; I’m grateful to have no costs against us but we’re doomed.”

In closing, the judge said he hopes the current licensees can continue to run the pub and urged them to have further discussions with the council.

A Dorset Council spokesperson said: "The council has a role in protecting the public from excessive disturbance. The licensing system allows for challenges to decisions to be made and for them to be considered again, which this appeal has done.

“There has been significant improvement in the operation and management of the premises since the review hearing took place, including a reduction in the number of noise nuisance reports at the premises.

“We will be seeking to work with the licence holder going forward.”