Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that conditions regarding CCTV proposed by the police were at page 177 of the agenda.

The police officer informed the Sub-Committee that there were a couple of typing errors in the report at page 176 and that the name Huseyin be replaced with Savvas in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the report. The police officer reported that the owner’s son was seen handling stolen alcohol. Police noticed a person entering the premises will a full bag and leave the premises with an empty bag.  CCTV showed that Savvas Boybeyi handed cash to Mr Onay who in turn handed it to the person. Mr Savvas Boybeyi admitted the offence and signed a community resolution.  The police reported that they were not happy with the management of the premises and were fairly sure that this would not have been the first time that this situation had happened.

The trading standards officer reported that Mr Boybeyi had attended an officer panel meeting following the seizure of illicit alcohol.  The licence could have been reviewed at this time.  In 2016 there were no suspect spirits or tobacco found on the premises that were suspect, however, there were beers with Polish-only labelling.  No invoices had been received for these beers as presumably none were available. This led him to believe that it was highly likely that these would be non-duty paid.  The manner in which the stolen goods were handled was routine and appeared to him to be acceptable business practice.  In these circumstances he recommended revocation. There was the issue of honesty and the move from illicit alcohol to stolen goods. He asked that, should the licence be suspended, conditions as detailed in his representation should be added to the licence.

The licensing authority agreed with revocation.  The licensee had failed to comply with conditions and offences had been committed.

The licensee’s representative stated that the designated premises supervisor (dps) had not been in the country when this incident had occurred due to a family tragedy.  He considered that the employees would behave in a different manner when he was away.  Police were at liberty to interview the dps but he had not been interviewed.  He stated that the dps had not been involved.  Any thoughts about his involvement were based on speculation. The dps was away when both breaches occurred. There had been four underage test purchases attempted, none of which resulted in sales.  There had been two visits since 2012, whilst the dps was away but he had provided invoices subsequently.  Drinks had been priced incorrectly but were legitimately sourced.  It was considered that it would not be proportionate or appropriate to remove the dps from the licence.  He accepted conditions 2 and 4 and advised that a suspension should not be imposed as a punishment but only to get things in order to act as a deterrent and to have time to reflect.  He agreed the conditions proposed by trading standards.  He reminded the Sub-Committee that, although two representations had been received asking for revocation, the Home Office guidance stated that licensing authorities should look to the police as the main source of advice on crime and disorder.  He stated that the police representation should carry a greater weight.  He also referred to the guidance at paragraphs 11.20 which stated that licensing authorities should seek to establish the cause for concern and action taken should always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response.  Incidents took place whilst the designated premises supervisor was out of the country and it would not be a fair and proportionate response to take a livelihood away for actions not attributed to him.  He stated that he could not be responsible for employee’s behaviour when not in the premises.  He showed the CCTV footage to police when requested.  He asked the Sub-Committee to impose conditions as proposed. 

In response to questions, the licensee’s representative stated that the dps was accountable.  If he had seen the CCTV himself he would be in a better position to know whether or not this incident had happened before and appeared to be general practice. He stated that the designated premises supervisor had dismissed two individuals, including his own son, which demonstrated he had taken the matter seriously.  He had a record of ten years of a reasonable standard.  He did not consider that the breaches were sufficient to revoke. In response to a question regarding the invoices the trading standards officer reported that one had been received dated 23 October but six other invoices were still outstanding.

In summary, the police officer stated he had not changed their opinion for their recommendation.  He stated that Mr Onay had admitted that the same person normally dropped the bottles off and that Mr Savvas Boybeyi had admitted that he had helped to take off the security tags. He asked that the designated premises supervisor be removed from the licence.

The trading standards officer stated he was sorry for the loss of a family member but saw no reason why the licensee should not have been in better charge of the premises.  He considered that it appeared that this was accepted practice.  There would be no reason to interview the dps once the two people accepted responsibility.  Only one invoice had been received when seven had been requested.  He recommended that the licence be revoked.

The licensee’s representative stated that evidence of the licensee’s honesty had been shown by the provision of the CCTV which had incriminated his own son. He asked the Sub-Committee to consider the home office guidance.  He stated it was not proportionate to revoke the licence.  The dps was not in the country at the time of the incident.

RESOLVED

1)       That the licence for Crouch Hill Supermarket, 60 Crouch Hill, N4 4AD be suspended for a period of two weeks and modified as follows:-

a)     That Mr Huseyin Boybeyi be removed as the designated premises supervisor.

b)     Mr Savvas Boybeyi or Mr Ali Onay have no involvement with the day to day management or any form of employment at the venue.

c)     That the CCTV condition as proposed by the police be added to the licence as follows:-

CCTV shall be installed, operated and maintained, at all times that the premises is open for licensable activities, so as to comply with the following criteria:

            The licensee will ensure that the system is checked every two weeks to ensure that the system is working properly and that the date and time are correct.  A record of these checks, showing the date and name of the person checking shall be kept and made available to Police or authorised Council officers on request;

            One camera shall show a close-up of the entrance to the premises, to capture a clear, full length image of anyone entering;

            The system will provide coverage of the interior of any exterior part of the    premises accessible to the public.

            The system shall record in real time and recordings will be date and time stamped.

            Recordings will be kept for a minimum of 31 days and downloaded footage will be  provided free of charge to the police or authorised council officers on request (subject to the Data Protection Act 1998) within 24 hours of any request and

            At all times there will be person on the premises who can operate the system sufficiently to allow Police or authorised Council officers to view footage on request.

d)     That conditions detailed on page 186 proposed by the trading standards team be applied to the licence.

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 heard evidence from the police that the review had been brought after the venue had been found to be handling stolen goods. The police stated that the offence was admitted and there had been a conviction and admission of guilt.  There had also been a breach of two conditions on the licence. The police stated that the licensee’s son had lied to the police before realising that the crime was on CCTV and that he had tried to blame an employee of the business, Mr Onay. The police stated that Mr Onay had admitted that this was not the first time that this person had come to the store and sold alcohol.  The Sub-Committee noted the police view that the purchase of stolen goods was accepted business practice and that the licensee would have known this. The police confirmed that they were not happy with the way the venue was run.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from trading standards that various conditions on the licence had been breached. The licence could have been reviewed in 2012 but instead the licensee attended an officer panel meeting and made a minor variation application to add appropriate conditions in relation to illicit goods.  The Sub-Committee heard evidence that during a visit in November 2016 invoices for a number of Polish beers were requested and only one invoice was produced which did not cover all the beer concerned.

The Sub-Committee noted that the licensing authority recommended revocation as the licensee had failed to comply with the licence conditions and the premises had handled stolen goods.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the licensee’s representative that the licensee was out of the country at the time the offence was committed. He did not know about the criminal activity and was taken advantage of whilst he was away. The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee was never interviewed by the police in relation to the offences. The license accepted the seriousness of the offence and agreed the conditions in relation to CCTV and the removal of Mr Onay and Mr Savvas Boybeyi from the business. The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee had dismissed Mr Onay and Mr Savvas Boybeyi from his employment. The licensee accepted that his record over the last 10 years had not been exemplary but it had been of a reasonable standard.

The Sub-Committee was concerned about standards of management at the premises. Although it was noted that the licensee was not in the country at the time of the offence, the past history of breaches and the evidence suggesting that this was not a one off offence were of concern.  The licensee’s failure to produce invoices for the alcohol seen in the stock room was a clear breach of the licence conditions. This, combined with the history of the premises and the offence under food labelling legislation, persuaded the Sub-Committee that the licensee should be removed as designated premises supervisor in order to promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was of the view that a two week suspension would not only give the business time to find an alternative designated premises supervisor but would also show other businesses in the borough that handling stolen goods is a serious offence and would not be tolerated. 

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that this suspension, the removal of the designated premises supervisor and the agreed conditions would combine to promote the licensing objectives and that the measures were proportionate and appropriate.

The Sub-Committee considered licensing policy 30 regarding review of licences, licensing policy 10 regarding high standards of management and the home office guidance, particularly paragraphs 2.1 and 11.20.