Whiting & Hammond has won its two-year battle to clear the name of an employee charged with assault after he was attacked by drunken customers.
However, the judge in the case has said it raises concerns over what protections are available to pub workers when dealing with alcohol-fuelled aggression.
Duke Chidgey had been accused of htting a customer with a bottle at W&H’s former pub the Old Dunnings Mill, in East Grinstead, West Sussex.
However, this week crown court judge, Mr Recorder Enoch QC, threw the case out, saying it should never have come to trial.
Lewes Crown Court heard that Chidgey was a 23-year-old assistant manager at the time of the incident in September 2013 and was in charge of the pub while the manager was on holiday.
Lee Reeves-Perrin, defending Chidgey, said a couple and their two children stopped by for dinner and consumed two bottles of wine, becoming increasingly abusive as the meal progressed. After they had finished they demanded to be able to take a container with soup for their sleeping daughter and when they were refused became even more abusive.
They were asked to leave and although they agreed there was a further altercation on the way out which resulted in them attacking Chidgey. Reeves-Perrin said the incident descended into a melee, with several customers getting involved.
Reeves-Perrin, of Tunbridge Wells-based solictors Cooper-Burnett, said: “At some point the man got a cut on his head and claimed he had been hit with a bottle by my client. He called the police who came and arrested Mr Chidgey.”
He added: “The whole incident was captured on CCTV and at no point is there any sign of my client hitting anyone with a bottle.”
Chidgey was charged but the Crown Prosecution Service decided no further action was necessary. However, a review was held and this decision was overturned. After the original trial date was postponed it eventually arrived at court this week.
Reeves-Perrin told M&C: “We ran an abuse of process argument on basis that the CCTV footage showed clearly what had happened and it completely contradicted the prosecution’s version of events. The judge, who saw it before the jury was even sworn in, agreed that there was a material difference and threw the case out.
“He made it clear this is a real concern for the industry. Employees don’t appear to have any protection when dealing with drunk customers and they ought to.
“This should never have come to court and has been both a waste of two years and a hugely unnecessary stress for this young man. It has also been very difficult for W&H, who paid for Duke’s legal fees and supported him the whole way.”
Whiting told M&C: “I will never forget the call I got that night in which a policeman told me a member of my staff had hit a customer over the head with a bottle and they were ‘lucky to be alive’. When a police officer tells you something like that you believe them, however out of character you think that is, but when I saw the CCTV I saw a completely different story.
“I’m just glad that we got a judge who saw through this straight away. I was really pleased that he recognised we need protection. That night Duke was responsible for our staff and our customers – he has every right to ask someone to leave and if he is then attacked he should expect to be protected by the police, not to be arrested himself.
“We don’t want to be in a position where pub employees are wary of contacting the police if they have been assaulted. I hope this can be a lesson learnt.”
