A Newhall pub has had its licence suspended for three months for selling alcohol after hours on five different days in a two-week period.

At a South Derbyshire District Council hearing on January 27, the Royal Oak, in High Street, was temporarily stripped of its licence.

Alongside the three-month suspension, the designated premises supervisor, listed as Matthew Newbold, would be "removed".

The premises licence holder, Robert Young, "must" now keep a record of when licensable activities (late-night music and alcohol) ends each day and when the venue is closed, this must be in a bound, paginated book.

Licensing officers will also visit the premises every two weeks to check the venue's CCTV, which is what had captured the numerous after-hours alcohol sales.

Liz Page, the council's legal advisor, reading out the decision, said the venue had been proven to have sold alcohol past 1am on five separate days over a two-week period in September last year.

This had been caught on the venue's own CCTV footage.

The venue had been licensed to sell alcohol until 11.30pm Sunday to Thursday and until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, but was caught selling alcohol at the following times on the following dates:

• 1.42am, September 12, 2021
• 1.42am, September 18, 2021
• 1.42am, September 19, 2021
• 1.33am, September 25, 2021
• 1.42am, September 26, 2021

However, the press and public were barred from the hearing of evidence for and against the pub and its ownership due to the apparent risk of prejudicing an ongoing criminal investigation, at least partly relating to a "domestic incident".

The Local Democracy Reporting Service and Reach PLC lobbied against the enforced exclusion, reminding councillors that it was a choice and that the press and public could be allowed to stay for all or part of the hearing. The freedom of the press was important to uphold, it argued.

It also raised the public interest in the details of the case for and against the Royal Oak being publicised, as opposed to a decision being made without scrutiny, transparency or accountability.

Such a move, the LDRS argued, would lead to speculation about the "crime and disorder" linked to the venue, and that more information had been shared publicly by the police than was being allowed to be discussed in the meeting.

This is because the force had detailed the selling of alcohol sales after hours in 2017, and had now repeated this, in a licence review notice issued by the council and posted on its website and around Newhall.

The notice detailed that the chief of police had "lost confidence that this premises can be run in a safe and crime free manner" due to "poor management" and "continued crime and disorder".

However, this did not form part of the public documents for the meeting.

The police also disclosed in a public statement that the review was related to "unlicensed activity" and an "ongoing criminal investigation" but this too was not detailed in the public documents.

The LDRS also argued that Derbyshire police frequently share detailed accounts of criminal incidents on its social media feeds before court cases have taken place, with possible implications for any subsequent trials or convictions.

It also referenced a May 20, 2021 licensing hearing held into a Long Eaton takeaway by Erewash Borough Council, where the press and public were only excluded for part of the evidence.

That case also involved an ongoing criminal investigation and on that occasion the full police report of the incident was disclosed and a step-by-step description of CCTV footage, evidence from police and the takeaway's owner and legal representative and the past issues of the venue were all discussed in public.

Only the viewing of the CCTV footage itself was carried out in private.

That case, while under a different district authority, was under the same police force and the same legal representative for the licence holder, and within Derbyshire.

Avi Wadhawa, Derbyshire police's solicitor, debating the exclusion of the press and public, said "an incident of crime" had occurred which was "domestic violence" and "involved parties that are in this process".

She said: "This is not a potential but a real risk that anything raised could prejudice the investigation.

"The public interest in doing so (preventing prejudice of a potential future court case) outweighs the public interest in the hearing taking place in front of others.

"It is in the interest for all parties that the investigation is not hindered in any way."

She claimed the press wanted a "carte blanche" approach to having hearings carried out entirely in public, in every case – which is untrue.

Ms Wadhawa appeared to claim that because there were no members of the public in the council chamber, just a member of the press, that there was no proven public interest – this is also untrue.

She said: "It would be very difficult to separate our reports (into public and private) because all of the incidents are intrinsically linked.

"It would be unfair on those involved."

Duncan Craig, the legal representative for the Royal Oak, said the "fluidity" of the hearing would be "hampered" if part of the evidence was to be discussed in public and part in private.

He said: "My client should be able to speak as freely as they can.

"I think it would be unfair for him to feel restricted in his right to speak unhindered and not prejudicing the proceedings.

"The public will still get the decision, it will be publicly available."

After a 20-minute private break to discuss the potential exclusion, Ms Page, on behalf of the council said "the public interest in exclusion outweighs the public interest in inclusion".

She said this was because "information that may prejudice the investigation of a crime cannot be separated from the licensing review".

The LDRS was allowed to hear the decision being read out.