Agenda item

The trading standards officer stated he had brought the review following the witnessing of a delivery of alcohol to the premises by white van, suspected to be non-duty paid.  On the day of delivery, officers asked for evidence of purchase.  This was followed by a document from the licensee’s accountant with evidence of purchase.  Following further enquiries it was established that the invoice was issued several hours after delivery and was an attempt to deceive which was the main aggravating factor. Evading duty was not a victimless crime but misled the public and cheated other competitors with smaller margins.   The licensee went to great lengths which were calculated to mislead and concocted another purchase of alcohol.  He considered this was very serious and should be sanctioned.  The home office guidance at paragraph 11.23 referred to a suspension as a deterrent and welcomed a short to medium suspension with the addition of conditions. 

In response to questions the trading standards officer stated that if someone was explicitly dishonest, they could not be trained to be honest.  The trading standards officer stated that a suspension should be for at least two weeks to allow for training.  The Sub-Committee noted that all staff had now been trained. 

The police supported the review by trading standards and stated that the licensee was trying to evade excise duty.  He stated that there had not been any incidents of crime and disorder at the premises. 

The licensing authority raised concerns about the breach.  He stated the discovery of illicit alcohol had been by chance and so they were not aware of the extent of this behaviour.  Residents in their representations had stated they had not been offered non-duty paid alcohol, but he stated that customers would not be aware of items that were non-duty paid.  The proposed CCTV condition was an effective tool for compliance.

In response to questions it was stated that proposed conditions that were outlined on page 83 of the agenda would be appropriate.  There was a significant concern regarding the standards of management due to this cover-up.  The licensee would need to restore credibility for faith to be regained.  The guidance considered suspension for use as a deterrent.  Confidence in the management was low and the licensing authority considered that this could be built up through a period of suspension. 

One resident who spoke in support of the licensee stated that suspension would be catastrophic for this small business.  No deceit had been intended and the licensee had been misinterpreted. She stated that the police had an app that connected shopkeepers and it would be useful for the licensee to be able to join that scheme. Another resident stated that the licensee’s full record needed to be taken into consideration, not just the last couple of months.  Local people benefitted from this business and it was important to look at both sides.  The licensee had a good history of trading.  There needed to be better communication on all sides to enable businesses to grow locally.  The resident had moved to the area in 2011 and he considered that the licensee was a great person and had a good relationship with his customers.

The licensee’s representative informed the Sub-Committee that the licensee unequivocally apologised for his initial mistake and the subsequent cover up.  He stated that customers had taken time out of their day to come and support the licensee.  This was a one off occurrence and evidence before and since the incident demonstrated that this was a one off mistake and gross error of judgement. The licensee was a proud man who had respect from his customers and had let himself down.  The trading standards officer accepted this was a one off from the evidence and from talking to the licensee and there were no further incidents.  The visits detailed by the licensing officers on page 100 of the report demonstrated that, at all times the licensee had promoted the licensing objectives and had operated high standards of management.  This was a matter of trust and the licensee was aware that this trust had been damaged. The licensee had held the licence since 2015 and was the designated premises supervisor prior to that time.  The business had been in the family for 11 years and the licensee had been involved in the business throughout that time.  No other problems had been found with the business. Residents had come to the meeting to talk to the Sub-Committee and that is something which the licensee should be given credit for.  The licensee acted out of character and panicked. The conditions proposed were already accepted and had been implemented.  CCTV had been improved.  Training had been undertaken and would be renewed on a regular basis.  There had been responsible management both before and since the incident.  This had been a sobering process; the licensee had made a mistake but had since tried to rebuild bridges for which he deserved credit.   The licensee would never put himself in this position again but if he did step out of line he would be in front of another Sub-Committee and it would be clear he’d had a chance previously.  He considered that the imposition of conditions would be sufficient to promote the licensing objectives, however if a short suspension was considered he proposed that the shortest suspension of days rather than weeks would be most appropriate. Three months was the maximum suspension. Any suspension would cause substantial aggravation to the licensee having to remove alcohol and replace it after the suspension. 

Councillor Poole stated that he was not interested in causing punishment or aggravation to the licensee but would be looking to act constructively to uphold the licensing objectives.  He did not consider that the licensee was panicking in the actions he had taken but was thinking clearly by generating false invoices to cover up his actions. The licensee’s representative accepted that the false invoices had been a deliberate act but the licensee was driven by panic when he realised he had been caught.  Councillor Poole stated that white vans were widespread on Caledonian Road and it was therefore safe to assume that the licensee had done this before. The licensee’s representative stated that there was no evidence to suggest this had happened before.  The licensee confirmed that he had never been approached by people selling from a white van previously. It was stated that the licensee had been tempted by the price of the alcohol from the white van.  It was difficult to compete and it was a spur of the moment decision. He was the only person in the shop allowed to purchase alcohol.  The licensee stated it was a spur of the moment decision.  Customers had said that alcohol was too expensive.  He had not thought his actions through clearly and he stated he would never do it again.  The goods were still being retained in his cellar.

The trading standards officer viewed these actions very seriously and stated that a message needed to be sent out to other licensees.

The residents stated that this was serious but stated that the licensee needed to grow as a business and hoped the decision would be supportive of his future development.

The licensee’s representative stated that this was about the promotion of the licensing objectives which would be dealt with by the imposition of conditions rather than a suspension.  He suggested that if it was considered that should a further deterrent was necessary, a suspension of a few days rather than weeks would be more appropriate. He would rebuild the trust that he had damaged.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence, in respect of Caledonian Store, 363 Caledonian Road, N7 9DQ, be suspended for two weeks and modified by the addition of conditions as detailed on page 83 of the agenda.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee had purchased illicit alcohol and that this was a serious matter in itself, however the aggravating feature was that the licensee had attempted to mislead trading standards and cover up his action.  The Sub-Committee noted that trading standards would expect a responsible licensee to co-operate with their investigation and that the action of the licensee to concoct evidence to demonstrate a legitimate sale amounted to an obstruction of their investigation. 

The Sub-Committee noted the licensee’s unequivocal apology and his recognition that his actions had damaged the trust that he had established with the licensing authority.  The Sub-Committee also noted the support for the licensee from residents. 

The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee was willing to accept the conditions proposed and it was submitted that these had already been complied with. It was submitted that the review process had been very sobering for the licensee and that it had been a serious deterrent in itself.  The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee put forward that, if the Sub-Committee was minded to impose a suspension, it should be for a short period of time.

The Sub-Committee noted the home office revised guidance and the types of criminal activity arising in connection with licensed premises which should be treated particularly seriously. This included the use of the licensed premises for the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco or alcohol.  Where the licensing authority is satisfied that the crime prevention objective is being undermined it is expected that revocation of the licence, even in the first instance, should be seriously considered.

The Sub-Committee concluded that it was not necessary or appropriate for this licence to be revoked.  However, the furtherance of the licensing objective for the prevention of crime and disorder, required a deterrence in the circumstances of this case and it was within the contemplation of the guidance that the licence should be suspended as a means of deterring the licensee from allowing the problems that gave rise to the review to happen again

The Sub-Committee noted the licensee’s recent attempts to rebuild the trust with the responsible authorities and in those circumstances decided that a short suspension would be appropriate. The Sub-Committees decision was therefore to suspend the licence for two weeks as it was appropriate and proportionate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.