Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the licensee’s representative wished to introduce some photographs of the premises.  There was no objection from trading standards or the police for the photographs to be shown.  The pictures had been taken approximately two to three weeks after the knife sales.  The photographs were passed to members of the Sub-Committee.

The police officer reported that this review had been brought following an underage sale of knives.  This was the fourth review of this particular premises, reviews being held in 2006, 2011 and 2012.  It was the duty of the retailer to show due diligence.  A visit was made to the premises in June 2014 and it was noted that the refusals log was not signed by the designated premises supervisor and there was an issue with the CCTV.  At a further visit in July 2015, Salman Capti was unable to produce his personal licence or the premises licence. There was CCTV but the police had not been consulted about its position.  He reported that these could be considered minor breaches but they led to something greater.  Gang members looked for a weakness in shopkeepers.  An underage knife sale was made without challenge and in view of the seriousness he asked that the Sub-Committee consider revocation of the licence.

The licensing authority fully supported the police review.  There was a history of poor management and conditions had been breached numerous times.  The premises could not be managed without undermining the licensing objectives and the licensing authority considered that the licence should be revoked.

The trading standards officer reported that the premises had a chequered history.  After an application was made for a review in 2012 the current licensee assumed responsibility and started positively so a recommendation was made at the review for a suspension of the licence rather than revocation.  It was made clear to the licensee that a very high standard should be shown in the future.  Two test purchases in 2013 had been refused and there had been no sale of illicit goods since 2011.  The sale of knives had been made following a failure to follow advice.  If advice had been followed the sale was less likely to have been made.  There had been two further test purchases since the knife sale and these had been refused.  Umat Capti had signed an undertaking that the shop would no longer sell knives. The CCTV had not been checked by the police. He considered that there was no realistic chance of a high standard of management in the future and asked the Sub-Committee to consider revocation or a lengthy suspension of the licence.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee it was reported that the trading standards officer was not aware the premises was selling knives.  An advice letter had been given to the Capti’s other shop across the road and this had been responded to and places booked on a training course.

The licensee’s representative reported that Salman Capti was 25 years of age and since he had been the designated premises supervisor in 2012 there had been significant engagement with the authorities.  The premises had been visited several times since the 2012 review for test purchases and had passed on all occasions.  The company running the business and Salman Capti had been prosecuted for the knife sale in June 2015, been convicted and received a £600 fine.  The sentence carried a maximum of four years and the court choosing to fine rather than impose a sentence reflected the relative seriousness with which the offence had been viewed by the court. There had been no further instances of illicit alcohol being found on the premises. He stated that if the licence was revoked the licensee could still sell knives as this was not a licensable activity.  A new camera had been installed and the licensee had tried to contact trading standards regarding its position. The CCTV was a good system and the spirit of the condition was being complied with.  The police had seen the angle of the camera and had not commented that it was unsuitable.  The licensee’s representative stated that the trading standards representation had been positive and the trading standards officer had stated that posters had been in a prominent enough position to satisfy the condition. The sale of knives was not a licensable activity although it was accepted that this should have been treated seriously.  He invited the Sub-Committee to consider home office guidance, paragraph 11.27 which had a comprehensive list of criminal activity that should be treated seriously, which did not include this particular offence.  An undertaking had been given that knives would not be sold in the future and this would remove the risk.  He submitted that for these reasons it was better for the premises to be regulated and considered revocation and/or a long suspension excessive.  The licensees had been engaged with the authorities since 2012 and had given an undertaking that no knives would be sold in July 2015.

In response to questions it was noted that the licensee did not remember receiving a letter about knife advice.  It was noted that the licensee had stated at the court hearing that the knives had been stolen but this had not been reported to the police.  It was stated that they did not have any idea that the knives had been stolen until the police visited the premises and it was accepted that this was not an example of good management.  It was stated that the court decision may be appealed. It was noted that since 2012 there had been no failed test purchases.  It was noted that this was a family business run by the two brothers and this was the first issue since they had managed the business. It was noted that the refusal books were now being maintained, although they had not been brought to the meeting.  The trading standards review in 2011 was prior to their management. It was stated that the sale of the knife was not deliberate.  They had viewed the CCTV and were unable to say what had happened on that day.  They had not been advised to put knives in a cabinet.  The sale of a knife was a mistake and they were not aware of what had happened. It was noted that knives were on open shelves and guidance to lock them away behind the counter had not been followed.  It was stated that two people from their other premises had booked a training course following the advice letter being left at their premises.

In summary, the police reported that this might have been a mistake but even in July 2015 the designated premises supervisor did not have his personal licence or premises licence available for inspection.  This might be considered minor but minor contraventions build up. Gangs look for weaknesses in licensees and revocation of the licence would reduce the negative impact of this premises on the community.

The trading standards officer reported that if advice was disregarded then subsequent sales may not be prevented. Management improvement should be more permanent.  He asked for revocation or a lengthy suspension.

The licensee’s representative stated that the premises no longer sold knives so the likelihood that the mistake would be made again had disappeared.  Despite repeated visits since 2012 all test purchases for underage sales and illicit alcohol had been passed.  Correspondence regarding knife advice had not been sent to this premises and the licensee should therefore not be judged so harshly.  There had been significant mitigation and the licensees had taken steps regarding their CCTV.  He did not consider revocation or a lengthy suspension would be proportionate.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence for City Supermarket, 190-194 Goswell Road, EC1V 7DT be revoked.

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 premises were run as a family business and the current licence holder had held the licence since 2012.

The Sub-Committee noted that this was a police review following the conviction of the licence holder for offences of the underage sale of two knives and breach of licence conditions.  The Sub-Committee noted that this was the fourth review of the premises licence, the previous reviews held for underage sales and illicit alcohol being found on the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the police visited the premises in June 2014 and July 2015 and noted that the refusals log had not been signed, the CCTV was not providing frontal identification of every person entering the premises (as stated in the condition) and there was no premises licence or personal licence available for viewing.  The police had not been requested to agree the CCTV as stated in the condition. 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from trading standards that, since the previous review in 2012, the management of the premises had improved in terms of compliance of conditions and underage sales. However, following the sale of knives to a person under the age of 18, the licence holder was prosecuted and convicted for offences regarding the underage sale and breach of licence condition. This called into question the standards of management at the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that advice concerning the sale of knives had been sent to another shop, run by the family, which had not been followed.

The licensing authority supported the review application made by the police and considered that the management was not sufficiently robust to ensure 100% compliance with legal requirements and was undermining the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant’s legal representative that there had been a significant improvement in the management of the premises since 2012 and that, although the licence holder had been convicted the Sub-Committee should take into account the sentence passed for the offences.  Since June 2014, the licence holder had engaged with the licensing authority and the breaches cited were of a technical nature and that the licence holder had complied with the spirit of the CCTV condition.  The Sub-Committee were invited to consider the home office guidance, paragraph 11.27, which did not include the offence regarding the underage sales of knives. The Sub-Committee noted that an undertaking had been signed that knives would no longer be sold at the premises thereby removing the mischief of the incident.

The Sub-Committee considered licensing policy 10 and took the view that the management of the premises fell short of the high standard of management which was expected in light of the past history.  The Sub-Committee considered that, had the CCTV condition been complied with, the series of events that occurred on the day that the knives had been sold, would have been known.  The Sub-Committee considered that the licence holder had failed to take advice offered by the local authority with regard to the sale of knives and in so doing failed to demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of best practice in running his business lawfully and in accordance with good business practice.  The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the crime and disorder objective had been seriously undermined.

Taking the above into consideration, the Sub-Committee decided that a revocation of the premises licence was the only proportionate response as the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder and public safety had been seriously undermined.  In reaching their decision, the Sub-Committee also took into consideration licensing policy 30 regarding the review of premises licences and considered the decision to revoke was appropriate and proportionate.