An East London nightclub where a judge ruled a ‘total lack of care from staff’ may have contributed to two rapes allegedly happening within months of each other has had a licensing application rejected.
Newham Council’s licensing sub-committee decided to reject a new premises licence from Pier One nightclub in Canning Town as members had concerns that the venue could not keep female customers safe nor stop future crime and disorder from happening.
In November 2023 the nightclub was stripped of its licence and shadow licence after District Judge McIlvey said two women who were allegedly raped on separate occasions were allowed to leave the club in vulnerable states.
He described CCTV footage captured from the incidents as ‘worrying, astonishing and quite chilling’ and said there was a ‘total lack of care from staff’ on both nights.
The nightclub, which is currently closed, had applied for a new premises licence and planned to have William Lule, who was a duty manager when the two alleged sexual assaults happened, as the new premises licence holder.
The Met Police urged the council not to grant the licence as it would put ‘further patrons at risk’ and said the latest application is a ‘blatant attempt to circumvent a decision’ made by DJ McIlvey in November 2023.
David Dadds, who was representing Pier One at a licensing meeting last month (January 29), told a packed-out council chamber that the local community wanted its premises back and referred to a petition that had been signed by more than 700 people in support of the venue.
Mr Dadds said: “The community wants the premises to come back, they obviously want a safe venue, how many premises do you know that can go out and get [over] 700 people to write to them in support? I don’t think I’ve ever seen the chamber so full of residents in support.”
During the meeting, the press and public had to leave the room several times as some of the evidence needed to be heard and discussed in private as it included witness accounts and CCTV footage from the nights of the alleged rapes.
Police were concerned that Mr Lule was working as a duty manager at the time of the incidents and that the previous premises licence holder was Sahara Promotions, a company partly owned by Mr Lule’s wife.
However, Mr Dadds said the focus should be on Mr Lule as an individual and not his wife nor her involvement with Sahara Promotions, which had its licence revoked by the judge.
Mr Lule told the committee: “I am determined to prove to the local authority and the police that we will build a proper relationship… and that customers are not going to come to the premises and walk away distressed and injured or end up in vulnerable positions.”
He added that there would be a new training programme and staff would be trained on licensing law, customer service and anti-spiking in addition to WAVE training which staff had been trained on in 2021.
Sahara Promotions currently has the lease for the venue, but Mr Dadd explained that Mr Lule was applying for the lease from the landlord so it could be in his name.
Mr Lule said he ensures bar staff are ‘doing what they’re supposed to be doing’ and interacts with customers and floor staff, as well as checking in areas including the toilets, gardens and kitchens.
Labour councillor, Tonii Wilson then said: “All this checking that you’ve been doing, I don’t hear you checking on the patrons.
“Now the CCTV footage that we’ve watched is quite disturbing, I don’t really want to go back on that because that’s the past, but I also don’t want it to follow you into the future.”
She added: “We seen many a young woman literally slouched over couches being manhandled picked up and literally dragged out because she’s unable to walk, my question to you Mr Lule is: have you not once seen any of this?”
Mr Lule responded, and said: “I have seen things that have happened and we have dealt with them.”
Mr Lule explained the alleged incidents shouldn’t have happened, and what should have happened, ‘should have been a very different picture’.
Mr Dadds added: “…this is going to be the safest premises in Newham and in London because Mr Lule understands it’s absolutely essential to intervene if someone is vulnerable.”
James Rankin, who was representing the police at the meeting, asked to make his closing statement in private because he was going to refer to a member of the public and her representation.
The licensing sub-committee then retired in private to make their decision, which resulted in them unanimously rejecting the application as they didn’t believe Mr Lule would be able to provide a ‘safe, well-run premises’ that promoted the licensing objectives.
According to the decision that was published online a few weeks later, the committee believed in order to change staff culture at Pier One, there needed to be a ‘clean sweep’ of management at the premises.
The decision partly read: “The committee felt having listened to both the applicant and the applicant’s representative that no amount of conditions would be able to promote the licensing objectives, if Mr Lule were to be the premises licence holder and designated premises supervisor.”
Dadds LLP, which represented the nightclub at the meeting, has been approached for comment.
