Agenda item

To consider an application for a premises licence review brought by Trading Standards as a Responsible Authority. 

Daliah Barrett, Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a review of the Premises Licence as requested by Trading Standards on the grounds of crime and disorder and public safety.  The Premises Licence had been held by Mr Salman Ekinci from November 2015 until July 2016, when he attempted to transfer the DPS to Mr Kazim Marasli, a director of the company, who was rejected on the grounds of his criminal record.  A subsequent application to transfer the DPS to Ms Tonbul, although Mr Ekinci and Mr Marasli were still involved with the premises.  Mr Ekinci was in charge of the premises when the Trading Standards visit was carried out in February 2016. 

Rebecca Whitehouse, Trading Standards Manager, presented the application for a review of the Premises Licence.  HMRC and Trading Standards had visited the premises on 24 February 2016, and had found illicit alcohol and tobacco, which equated to £884.19 of unpaid duty.  The goods had been stored in places commonly equated with illicit sales, and were readily accessible within the premises to allow them to be sold.  The case was being put forward for prosecution, and it was felt that a review of the licence was also appropriate.

Mr Marasli apologised for the incident, and advised that the cigarettes were for personal use and had been stored under the counter in the premises.  He also told the Committee that the alcohol had been purchased from a cash and carry and he had no knowledge of it being non-duty paid. 

In response to the Committee, Ms Whitehouse confirmed that Trading Standards considered that this was day to day practice for the premises because of the accessibility and availability of products, and the fact that there was no CCTV footage available when requested, which could imply that any footage would show sales of non-duty paid goods. 

The Committee questioned Mr Marasli in regard to the statement made in his interview where he said that the alcohol was purchased by him in Belgium and brought back to sell, which conflicted with his statement earlier in the hearing where he said that he had purchased the alcohol at the cash and carry.  Mr Marasli did not provide an answer to the Committee.

Ms Whitehouse summed up, reiterating that there had been a significant quantity of illicit goods available for sale, and Trading Standards had no confidence that the premises would confirm to the licensing objectives.

The Committee adjourned to consider the application.

RESOLVED

The Committee carefully considered the application for a review of the premises licence, the representations of Trading Standards and the licence holder, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the s182 guidance.

The Committee resolved to:

·         Modify the conditions of the licence to incorporate the recommendations in the Trading Standards representation set out on pages 65 and 66, points 1- 10 of the Committee agenda pack.

·         To suspend the license for a period of 1 month.

. 

The Committee  noted that the account given by Mr Marasli at the hearing that the illicit alcohol had been purchased from a UK cash and carry differed from the account that he gave in his interview under caution  where he admitted to having bought the illicit alcohol in Belgium. The Committee also had regard to the note on page 63 of the agenda pack of the interview of the DPS Mr Ekinci which indicated that before the inspection by Trading Standards Mr Marasli was aware that non duty paid products should not be kept on the premises. The Committee also had regard to the evidence from trading standards that the concealment of a large quantity of individual packets in the vicinity of the counter was consistent with a business trading in illicit products and using a reasonably sophisticated method to avoid detection. It also had regard to the evidence that fake UK duty labels had been  attached to some of the bottles of alcohol. The Committee did not find Mr Marasli’s explanation that the cigarettes were there for personal use credible and on the evidence concurred with the view of Trading Standards that it was the general day to day practice at the premises to provide illicit tobacco and alcohol for sale from the premises.

The Committee had careful regard to the fact that criminal activity had taken place at the premises of a type which the guidance advises should be treated particularly  seriously and the Committee were of the view on the evidence,  that there was a clear and deliberate failure by the license holder to uphold and promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety.

In light of its conclusions,  the Committee felt that it was appropriate to impose the conditions recommended by Trading Standards in order to promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. 

In treating the criminal activity seriously,  the Committee considered revoking or suspending the license and  recognised that a suspension of the licence could have a serious financial impact on the licence holder’s business. The Committee decided not the revoke the licence but considered that it would be appropriate and proportionate  to suspend the licence for 1 month  because notwithstanding that this was a first offence of this type, the actions of the license holder were deliberate and  the welfare of the wider community had been put at risk in terms of the potential harm caused by such tobacco and alcohol. Suspension was therefore in their interests. Suspension was also considered as a proportionate step to act as a deterrent to the license holder to prevent the future use of the premises for such criminal activity. 

Informative

The committee decided to afford the licence holder a further opportunity to demonstrate that he would comply fully with the law and his obligations as a licence holder but wanted the licence holder to be aware that should this matter come before the Committee again, it would take a dim view of any repetition of the activities highlighted in this review.