Fabric has won its appeal against additional security measures imposed by Islington council on its license.
Last December, the council voted to add a number of conditions to the club's license that would have seen sniffer dogs and ID scanning introduced at the venue.
Fabric was forced to adopt the strict measures following the deaths of two clubbers that had taken MDMA at the club.
At the time, Fabric's founders Cameron Leslie and Keith Reilly said they would appeal the decision.
Speaking to the Standard, Reilly said: “In 15 years we have had six million people come through the doors and sadly there have been four deaths.
We do everything we can to stop people taking drugs in the club. What’s happened recently is this country is awash with drugs."
Fabric recently trialled using ID scanning at entry but following the appeal the club will no longer be obliged to permanently implement the system.
Update: Fabric have released a brief statement:
"Everyone at fabric is delighted with the outcome and are very much looking forward to resuming our positive, long standing and solid relationships with both Islington Council’s licensing department and the borough’s police to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for our club goers and local residents."
The club also refered to a longer statement from their lawyers:
"By the time the case came to appeal the only live issues were the imposition of two conditions. The first required Fabric to employ drugs detection dogs at the premises for 50% of the time the club was open. The second required the use of ID Scan machines, and for all customers to be “vetted” by the machine. These conditions had been stayed pending the appeal but we had carried out trials of both.
We instructed Gerald Gouriet QC, the leading Licensing Silk, and called evidence from, amongst others, Professor Fiona Measham (the country’s leading academic on the social impact of drug use) and Robert Humpreys OBE (Chairman of PASS).
District Judge Allison allowed our appeal in full. In relation to the drugs dog she said, on the evidence she had heard, Islington were wrong to impose the condition as it would not promote the licensing objectives. The Judge went further and found that the use of a drugs dog could undermine the licensing objectives in a number of unintended ways, including causing drugs to remain in circulation that would otherwise have been confiscated under Fabric’s thorough search procedures.
With regard to ID Scan, the Judge said that there was no evidence that the premises had issues with underage entry/sales; that to deploy it at Fabric would adversely affect the length of the queue, with possible public order consequences; and that it would create problems for the significant number of non-UK customers who would not necessarily carry photo ID. She said that Fabric had no issues with violent crime and disorder, which made ID Scan a more understandable control measure at other premises. She also noted that the ID Scan system Fabric had trialled for 7 weeks had not been interrogated once by the police, and that in 16 years of operation there had only been one incident at the premises where ID Scan might have been of some use in the prevention of crime – although she added that, on the facts, she doubted it would. Again she found that Islington were wrong to impose this disproportionate condition.
Gerald and I have spent the last year wrestling with the issues surrounding this case, and in particular the fact that young people have lost their lives after taking drugs on the way to, or in the venue. After hearing Gerald’s submissions the Judge found that the operator was a beacon of best practice, and she urged Fabric to continue its diligence in what is a difficult environment for all who work in the Night time Economy – where so many young people seem prepared, regrettably, to put their lives at risk by taking unlawful drugs."