Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the licence had been amended in October 2018 following a Council and Police Officer panel meeting.  Notes of a compliance visit on the 25 October 2019 were detailed on page 102 of the agenda.

The trading standards officer reported that alcohol had been sold to a 14-year old in August 2019.  A penalty notice was served by the police.  Training records had not been produced although a refusals register appeared to be kept up to date. The minor was not in a group, so was not intimidating.  The business should have been thinking Challenge 25 and if customers did not look 25 years they should be asked their age. The licensee had not engaged with trading standards and it was considered that a suspension be considered to act as a deterrent.

In response to questions, it was noted that the sale took place at 3.20pm during the after school period. The trading standards officer stated that, in mitigation, the alcohol was not sold by the licensee and had not been sold previously, however, it had been a catastrophic failure of the business to sell alcohol to a 14-year old at that particular time of day.  This licence was a 24-hour licence and customers were even more vulnerable in the early hours of the morning.

The public health officer raised concerns that the 14-year old was able to purchase alcohol with such ease and stated that this premises was falling well below the expected standards of management.

The licensing authority stated that their representation was detailed on pages 96-98. Following the submission of the review there had been no contact from the licensee.  Two staff members seemed unaware that a review of the licence was pending.  Conditions were still not being complied with at the compliance visit on the 25 October.  There had been a previous history of non-compliance and a panel hearing following a fight in the premises involving staff and breaches of licence conditions.   This was a 24-hour operation which required very good management standards.  The licensing authority considered that revocation or a long suspension be seriously considered in this instance.

In response to questions, it was noted that the sale had been a major failure of the business and the compliance visit was a concern. Revocation of the licence was a suggested option. The panel visit had been at the request of the police licensing team following a fight in the premises involving staff and a weapon.

The police reported that they had assisted with the visit by Trading Standards.  The previous panel had been arranged and the licence modified and it was hoped that there would be some improvement in standards.  It was expected that management standards should be very high in a premises with a 24-hour licence. There had been inconsistencies in management standards. They were concerned that the designated premises supervisor was not doing all necessary to prevent crime and disorder.  Irresponsible sale of alcohol could significantly fuel problems with crime.

In response to questions, it was noted that there was no evidence to suppose that further conditions would be complied with.  Should the licence be revoked a fresh application could be made in the future. There had been previously been two panel meetings but there had been no previous suspension of the licence.

A member of staff, on behalf of the licensee, stated that she was very sorry for the sale of alcohol.  She stated that this had been the first incident in around 13 years.  This was a family business and ID was always being requested. There was an incident log at the premises.

In response to questions it was noted that at the compliance visit on the 25 October, issues had still been outstanding.  Verbal feedback regarding the outstanding issues had been given at the time.  The designated premises supervisor was present at the time of the compliance visit. The licensee hoped that he would be able to manage the risk in the future and would be very careful.  No drinking was allowed in the premises. There were four members of staff.

In summary, the trading standards officer reported that no training record produced.  The licensee and staff were considered to be lovely people but incompetent and officers had no confidence that they would be able to manage licensed premises. The licensing authority stated that high standards were required to manage a 24 hour premises and this business was incompetent. The police stated that they had no confidence in any of the family members. The licensing panel had added conditions which had been breached.  The licensing objectives needed to be upheld and management needed to be robust, particularly for a 24-hour licence. Revocation should be considered, although all options should be explored. The officer from public health stated that she echoed the concerns of the responsible authorities.

The licensee and member of staff had nothing to add to their previous statement.

RESOLVED

That the application for a premises licence, in respect of JE Fine Foods, 187 Blackstock Road, N5 2LL, 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 a test purchase was carried out on the 20 August 2019 following intelligence received by Trading Standards. The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee/ designated premises supervisor (dps) was not present at the time of the sale. A refusals register was produced but the Sub-Committee noted that training records were not available and that these still have not been submitted to Trading Standards.

The Sub-Committee noted that a previous underage test purchase was carried out at the premises on 11 December 2018 and no alcohol was sold to the minor. However, the Sub-Committee also heard evidence from the Licensing Authority of instances of non-compliance at the premises and officer panels that the licensee was called to on 15 August 2013 for selling no duty paid alcohol and on 11 October 2018 following a fight at the premises involving staff and a weapon, breaches of licence conditions including lack of CCTV coverage.

The Sub-Committee noted the submissions from the Police that the licensee was a nice person but the premises were run inconsistently. As the premises operated with a 24-hour licence, the highest standards of management were required.  The Police submitted that, as conditions already imposed on the licence were not being complied with the licensing objectives would not be promoted by the addition of further conditions. The Sub-Committee also noted the submissions from Public Health regarding the association of alcohol use in young people with a range of health risks and also that Islington had the highest rate of alcohol specific admissions in London among those under 18 years.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence on behalf of the licensee that this was the first time that an underage sale had been made and that it wouldn’t happen again in the future. However, the licensee had not set out any action plan to address all the concerns raised and in summing up, the responsible authorities agreed that the licensee and his staff were affable people but did not display the competence required to promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee considered paragraphs 11.27 and 11.28 of the Home Office revised guidance.  The Sub-Committee noted that the sale of alcohol to minors was a criminal activity to be treated particularly seriously on review. The guidance set out that revocation of the licence should be seriously considered and that review procedures should be used effectively to deter such criminal activity.

The Sub-Committee took into account Licensing Policy 29 in relation to reviews, Licensing Policy 8 in relation to management standards and Licensing policy 28 which stated that the local authority expected the licensee to implement appropriate measures including Challenge 25.

The Sub-Committee noted that in their application and in their opening address, Trading Standards invited the Sub-Committee to consider a short suspension. However, in summing up and after hearing the evidence submitted by the other responsible authorities and the licensee, trading standards submitted that they had no confidence that the licensee could undertake the sale of alcohol and ensure the licensing objectives would be promoted. The police summed up that revocation should be considered and the licensing authority highlighted that very high standards of management were required for 24 hour businesses and the licensee had not demonstrated the necessary competencies.

The Sub-Committee considered whether it would be appropriate to impose further conditions, including a reduction in hours of operation.  However, the Sub-Committee concluded that the licensee had failed to comply with conditions already in place and were not confident that the licensing objectives would be promoted even with a reduction in hours.

The Sub-Committee considered whether a suspension, would be appropriate both as a deterrent and to allow the licensee to implement improvements. However, the Sub-Committee concluded that a suspension would not ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives and in view of the history of the management of the premises and the failure of the licensee to engage with the responsible authorities and provide any credible plan of action, revocation was the appropriate and proportionate decision.