The fate of Fabric, a globally recognized nightclub located at 77A Charterhouse Street, London, became a focal point of intense debate and ultimately, legal action. This article delves into the proceedings that led to the revocation of Fabric’s license, exploring the evidence presented, the arguments made, and the factors that contributed to this landmark decision impacting London’s nightlife.
The review was initiated following the tragic deaths of two 18-year-olds at the venue within a six-week period. These incidents triggered a summary review, bringing into sharp focus the club’s operational practices and their alignment with licensing objectives, particularly the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety.
Police Evidence: A Pattern of Non-Compliance and Drug Culture
The police representative presented a compelling case for revocation, citing a series of visits to Fabric that revealed a concerning pattern of non-compliance with licensing conditions and a pervasive drug culture within the premises.
A key visit on July 2nd and 3rd, 2016, highlighted a stark lack of adherence to the club’s search policy. Officers reported witnessing open drug use, including the visible consumption and purchase of Class A drugs in close proximity to the bar areas. Furthermore, drug taking was evident in the toilets, and staff appeared to be within earshot of drug sales without intervention. Door staff were described as static, and searches conducted on entry were deemed cursory, lasting less than five seconds for visiting officers. These observations were consistent with findings in exempt papers related to the review. The police asserted breaches of conditions 2, 9, and 35 of Fabric’s license.
Another visit on July 22nd further substantiated these concerns. A customer in the chill-out area was found in a state of undress and extreme intoxication, a situation reportedly unaddressed by Fabric staff. This incident added to the evidence of breaches of conditions 9 and 35, reinforcing the portrayal of an environment where drug access and consumption were open, frequent, and tolerated. Crucially, Fabric offered no denial of this presented evidence.
The police also brought to light a grim statistic: six drug-related deaths at Fabric between January 2012 and August 2016. The circumstances surrounding a September 2014 death echoed the more recent tragedies. The July 2nd/3rd visit also noted that internal security staff remained stationary instead of actively patrolling the venue, and full search procedures were not being implemented.
The history of Fabric’s license was also scrutinized. A review in 2014, prompted by previous deaths and collapses at the venue, had resulted in new license conditions. However, conditions related to drug dogs and ID scanners were successfully appealed by Fabric in December 2015. The police argued that the current operation of Fabric conflicted with licensing policies 9 and 10 (high management standards) and policy 17 (dance venue safety). Referencing Home Office guidance, they emphasized that while financial impacts should be considered, decisive action, including license revocation, was warranted for irresponsible trading and serious criminal activity.
Visits on June 24th, August 5th, and July 22nd provided further evidence of drug sales and distribution within Fabric. While acknowledging potential management failures, the police stressed that even with best efforts, licensing authorities must act to promote licensing objectives, as per paragraph 11.26 of Home Office guidance.
Despite Fabric’s offer to reinstate the ID scan and drug dog conditions they had previously appealed, the police representative advocated strongly for revocation. They cited a lack of confidence in Fabric’s adherence to conditions, past failures, and a belief that further conditions would be ineffective. Superintendent Nicholas Davies, presenting a witness impact statement, echoed this sentiment, stating a lack of confidence in preventing future tragedies and supporting license revocation.
Covert visits following the first death and prior to the second death further informed the police perspective. PC Steve Harrington noted Fabric’s failure to share findings regarding conditions 18 and 20 with the police. The sheer number of deaths at Fabric was unparalleled in the Borough. Following the June 2016 death, police had met with Fabric to discuss policy changes, requesting flyer modifications and a stronger anti-drug message. However, at that time, police lacked direct evidence of drug sales inside the venue. The statistics of six deaths and ten collapses since 2012, with most fatalities under 25, were presented as disproportionate. The two recent deaths at Fabric represented a significant percentage (nearly 10%) of national ecstasy-related deaths during that period, based on Office for National Statistics figures. The police reiterated their lack of confidence in the effectiveness of any license modifications and firmly recommended revocation.
Concerns were also raised about condition 19, regarding the effectiveness of a paper-based system for identifying banned customers in a large venue like Fabric. The police cited best practices from Warehouse in Manchester, a similar venue employing police officers (funded by the club), enforcing early entry times, and utilizing “loop” drug testing (though the police clarified they would not endorse this under current drug laws). It was noted that Fabric allowed entry throughout the night, potentially accommodating individuals who had consumed substances elsewhere beforehand and expected to purchase more drugs within the club.
Licensing Authority and Public Health Perspectives
The Licensing Authority reinforced the police’s concerns, emphasizing their duty to promote licensing objectives, particularly crime prevention, disorder control, and public safety. They acknowledged Fabric’s proposed conditions, including ID scanning and drug dogs, but questioned their feasibility and effectiveness. The Authority deemed current operating procedures insufficient to ensure public safety, suggesting a need for a management culture shift towards zero tolerance and more robust, transparent procedures. They raised doubts about the enforceability of certain proposed conditions and emphasized the need for clarity and collaboration with the police and licensing authority in appointing an auditor and developing security and search policies. Ultimately, the Licensing Authority stressed the Sub-Committee’s need for assurance of significant changes in management culture, implying that revocation was a necessary consideration if such assurance was lacking.
The Public Health Authority presented a stark assessment, categorizing Fabric as posing a “significant and high-level risk” to public safety and order. They highlighted the two recent deaths and numerous serious drug-related health incidents since 2011. Their evidence suggested that individuals were able to bring drugs into the venue, purchase drugs inside, and consume them freely. The ease of purchasing Class A drugs was identified as a major public safety risk, indicating a disregard for responsibilities as a licensed premises and a failure to uphold the licensing objective of crime and disorder prevention. The Public Health Authority recommended license revocation unless compelling evidence of customer monitoring, a zero-tolerance drug policy, and clear protocols for unwell patrons were demonstrated.
Referencing 2013 statistics, the Public Health officer noted that Fabric accounted for 2% of national MDMA deaths, despite MDMA deaths being concentrated in the 18-24 age group, a demographic strongly associated with Fabric. They advocated for a zero-tolerance approach, a swift response to unwell customers, and health education initiatives. While acknowledging Fabric’s provision of paramedics and engagement with health services, they raised questions about staff observation in areas like the chill-out room and lighting conditions.
Voices in Support of Fabric: Community, Industry, and the Venue Itself
Five interested parties spoke against the review, offering a counter-narrative and emphasizing Fabric’s positive contributions and alleged high standards.
Anurag Jha, a 15-year Fabric attendee, lauded the staff’s professionalism and the thoroughness of searches, stating he had never witnessed drug dealing or felt unsafe. Douglas Carr, representing Michael Carr, argued against penalizing Fabric for individual choices to take illegal substances, emphasizing the club’s professional operation, diverse music programming, and cultural significance to London. Alan Miller, Chair of the Night-Time Industries Association, described Fabric as a “gold standard” venue with strong safety measures, cautioning against onerous conditions that could drive nightlife into less regulated, impromptu events. He acknowledged the tragedy of drug-related deaths but framed it as a societal issue, not solely a venue problem. Alex Proud argued for constructive dialogue and highlighted the statistical improbability of death at Fabric compared to other venues, defending the club’s adherence to rules and “gold standard” reputation. Kate Simko, a local music composer, emphasized electronic music’s cultural importance and questioned broader societal factors contributing to rising drug deaths, arguing that closure would displace drug use, not eliminate it, and negatively impact London’s cultural landscape.
Paddy Whur, Fabric’s representative, highlighted the significant public support, including endorsements from the Mayor of London and local MP, nearly 900 representations, and a petition with over 120,000 signatures. He presented further proposed conditions, including a distinct ID protocol, 100% screening, a change in music policy (suggested to reduce health risks), funding for police dog presence, and changes to the designated premises supervisor and security company. He emphasized a commitment to refocusing efforts and presented expert witness Professor Measham.
Professor Measham, with 25 years of experience, contextualized the drug problem as a broader societal issue, noting the fivefold increase in ecstasy-related deaths nationally. She highlighted the increased strength and variability of ecstasy pills, making dosage unpredictable and smuggling easier. She considered Fabric among the best-run clubs, with security and paramedics mitigating risks. She argued that closure would displace, not solve, the drug problem and cited the Warehouse Project’s positive experience with drug testing. She praised Fabric’s security staff, particularly their zero-tolerance stance on sexual harassment, and concluded that closing Fabric would not reduce ecstasy-related issues.
Cameron Leslie, Fabric’s Director, expressed deep sadness over the deaths and refuted the police’s portrayal of the venue as a “safe haven for drugs.” He emphasized Fabric’s transparency, proactive approach to security, and cooperation with authorities, citing arrests of drug dealers at the venue and the co-owner’s personal risks taken to combat drug operations. He highlighted 80 identified drug dealers at the club’s entrance since 2012 and contested the police’s “endemic failure” assessment, citing positive Tripadvisor reviews about intrusive searches and a magistrate’s court judge describing Fabric as a “beacon of best practice.” He criticized the police’s operational visit as “unprofessional and premeditated” and challenged specific claims in their evidence as damaging misrepresentations. He emphasized Fabric’s long history of cooperation with police and council, its continuous review of procedures, and the inherent difficulty of eliminating all drugs in a large venue, given the evolving nature of drug concealment and increased pill potency. He stressed Fabric’s commitment to best practices and ongoing efforts to refine procedures, arguing for collaboration and education rather than demonization and closure.
Fabric representatives detailed measures taken after previous deaths, including enhanced search policies, increased security, medical room upgrades, staff training, and collaborations with Professor Measham. They highlighted the introduction of defibrillators, ad-hoc auditors, undercover security, and air conditioning improvements following earlier incidents. They emphasized continuous review and adaptation of procedures after each training session, rather than annual reviews. They addressed the 2014 death, noting the victim had taken drugs before arrival and the club’s commendation by the coroner. They described ongoing retraining and discussions around proposed license conditions. Incident logs, though omitted from the presented papers, were stated to be available to the police.
In response to ongoing concerns, Fabric offered further proposed conditions, including enhanced search procedures (emptying pockets, searching shoes and socks), a new security company, a dedicated search captain to prevent staff fatigue, enhanced CCTV monitoring, body-worn cameras for queue supervision, and consideration of an amnesty bin. They reiterated their concerns about the unregulated private drug dog industry and favored police drug dog involvement if drug dog use was mandated. Professor Measham reiterated concerns about private drug dog reliability and training limitations, particularly regarding ecstasy detection. Fabric emphasized staff training to identify patterns of behavior indicative of drug use and suggested music policy changes and outreach education as potential harm reduction strategies.
The Revocation Decision and Its Rationale
Ultimately, the Licensing Sub-Committee resolved to revoke Fabric’s premises license. Their stated reasons for decision, based on the Licensing Act 2003, national guidance, and the Council’s Licensing Policy, centered on the following key findings:
- Recurring Issues: A 2014 license review following previous deaths had failed to adequately address underlying problems.
- Recent Fatalities: Two 18-year-old patrons died at Fabric in close succession due to MDMA consumption, having purchased drugs inside the venue.
- Search Failures: Patrons were able to conceal and bring drugs into the club due to inadequate searches at entry.
- Observable Drug Use: Drug use and its effects were demonstrably widespread, to the extent that staff should have been aware and intervened.
- Inadequate Staff Response: Staff and security intervention was “grossly inadequate” given the overt evidence of drug use and related symptoms among patrons.
- Undercover Evidence: Undercover police witnessed open drug use and sales within the premises during a July 2016 visit, confirming search inadequacies and breaches of licensing conditions.
- Smoking Area Issues: Drug purchase inquiries within earshot of security in the smoking area contravened licensing conditions.
- Vulnerable Demographics: Deaths disproportionately affected young people (18-24 age group).
- Breached Conditions: Conditions 9, 20, 30, 35, 40, and 52 were found to be breached.
The Sub-Committee concluded that existing license conditions designed to prevent serious crime had not been observed, and a “culture of drug use” existed that management appeared “incapable of controlling.” They deemed further conditions insufficient to address their serious concerns about venue management. Highlighting their duty to treat criminal activity, particularly Class A drug sales and distribution, with utmost seriousness, the Sub-Committee determined that the crime prevention objective was being undermined. Given the prior review’s failure to resolve these issues, leading to further tragedies, revocation was deemed “appropriate and proportionate.”
The interim steps put in place during the review process remained in effect pending any appeal. Councillor Asima Shaikh recorded her disagreement with the revocation decision in the minutes.
This decision marked a significant moment in the debate surrounding nightlife, drug policy, and venue responsibility, raising complex questions about balancing entertainment, public safety, and individual accountability within licensed premises, particularly those operating in the vibrant and challenging environment of Charterhouse Street and London’s broader nightlife scene.
