Agenda item

Applicant for Review: Trading Standards, represented by Robin Wood, Senior Trading Standards Officer

Responsible Authority: the Police, represented by Martin Purchase (Police Liquor Licensing Bureau) and Inspector Steven Mildren,

Witnesses for the Police: PC Andrew Grabowski, Mrs Catherine Wilson

Bright Stores, represented by Zaheer Hussain (Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor), Aftab Hussain

The parties confirmed that they had received and understood the review procedure.

The Environmental and Licensing Manager introduced the application. He explained that Bright Stores was currently authorised to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises between 10:00 and 23:00 every day. The review application had been brought by Trading Standards, who were seeking the revocation of the licence on the grounds that the licensing objectives of the protection of children from harm and the prevention of crime and disorder were being undermined by sales of alcohol to persons under the age of 18. The Police had made a representation to the application, and had also requested that the licence be revoked.

Robin Wood, Senior Trading Standards Officer, stated the case for the Applicant for Review. He said that the premises had failed test purchases on three occasions, once on 16 February 2010 and twice on 17 May 2010. He explained the procedure for test purchases. He stated that these were governed by strict Home Office guidelines and that only children who looked their age could be used to conduct them. Trading Standards worked closely with the Police in relation to test purchases. They were sometimes random, sometimes more targeted and related to intelligence received. He stated that this was only the second time that Trading Standards had initiated the review of a licence and the first time that they had sought the revocation of a licence. Trading Standards usually found that fixed penalties or prosecution were sufficient to bring about a change of behaviour. But in the case of Bright Stores further complaints had been received after a fixed penalty had been imposed following a failed test purchase in February 2010 and after the Designated Premises Supervisor had attended a meeting at Bath Police Station in March 2010, at which he had been given advice about requiring ID from those who appeared to be under age. A report had been received in April 2010 that alcohol was being sold to children, and further test purchases were made on 17 May 2010, which were both failed, resulting in the sale of a bottle of cider and a bottle of vodka to two 16-year old boys. Test purchases made at four other premises on the same day with the same boys had been refused. A further complaint about selling alcohol to children at the premises was received two weeks later. Mr Wood said that a picture had emerged of a premises that was regularly flouting the law. There was evidence that the premises had acquired a reputation among children as being a place where it was easy to buy alcohol. The application contained plentiful evidence of the serious harm that had been caused to children by alcohol sold to them at the premises. Trading Standards did not think that a prosecution would be effective in protecting children from further harm, but that only the revocation of the licence would be.

In reply to a question from a Member, Mr Wood stated that it had been difficult to assess the attitude of the Licence Holder to underage sales. On the one hand he had expressed regret, but it did not seem that he made efforts to prevent them happening again.

The Licence Holder had no questions to put to Mr Wood.

Martin Purchase stated the case for the Police. He invited PC Andrew Grabowski to make a statement. PC Grabowski referred to the incident log attached to the Police’s representation and to the note of a meeting with the Licence Holder held at Bath Police Station on 17^th March 2010. He stated that he had issued a fixed penalty notice to Mr Shaznad Hussain, brother of the Licence Holder, on 9^th February 2010 after a failed test purchase. He referred to the statement attached to the review application from a mother of a 13-year old boy, who had come home intoxicated on 1^st May 2010. PC Grabowski had attended to take statements and had seen the boy, who in his opinion could not have been taken for an 18-year old. The boy had later identified the premises from which he had bought a bottle of cider as Bright Stores. The boy’s friend, who was also 13, had purchased a bottle of cider from the premises at the same time. He had said that when he told the person serving that he wanted cider, he had been asked if he had a bag to put it in, and when he replied that he had, it was sold to him. On the 20^th May 2010 the premises had been reported for summons. On 3^rd June 2010 PC Grabowski had taken statements following the admission of a 14-year old boy to the Royal United Hospital on 1^st June 2010 after he had consumed alcohol. Following a visit to the premises on 3^rd June, Mr Purchase had written to the Licence Holder advising him of the extremely serious nature of the incident. PC Grabowski stated that many reports had been received from residents about problems involving young people occurring in the vicinity of the premises. There was an alley near the premises, which led to a play area next to the river. The play area was supposed to be for the use of children under the age of 14, but had become a gathering place for older youths. Reports had been received of groups of up to 20 youths drinking there. There were always empty drink cans and bottles scattered there. In June there had been a report that youths had bought drink from the premises and gone to the play area to consume it.

In reply to questions from Members, PC Grabowski and Mr Purchase stated:

• the next nearest premises selling alcohol was in Chelsea Road, about a quarter of a mile from Brights Stores

• they had not asked to see CCTV recordings made at the premises

Mr Purchase invited Mrs Catherine Wilson to make a statement. Mrs Wilson said that her son had been admitted to the Royal United Hospital on 1^st June 2010 after consuming alcohol. He had gone out that night to attend an alcohol-free nightclub for young people in Bath. Her son was 14, did not shave, and his voice had not broken. She thought that there was no way that he could be mistaken for an 18-year old. On the evening of 1^st June, she received a phone call from her friend’s son, who told her that her son was about to be taken by ambulance to hospital and that he was unconscious but still breathing. She went immediately to Bath to see her son, who was covered in vomit, being put into the ambulance. She followed the ambulance to the RUH. Her son was put on a drip and remained unconscious for several hours. His blood pressure was low and he vomited several times during the night. She was told by her son’s friend that they had gone skating in Victoria Park and then gone to Bright Stores. They knew that if they took their own bag, they would be able to buy drink from the store. Her son had drunk three quarters of a bottle of vodka. The nurse had said that she thought that if she had drunk that much she would probably have died. Her son had no access to alcohol at home.

Mr Purchase invited Inspector Steve Mildren to make a statement. Inspector Mildren submitted that Members had before them evidence of repeated disregard for licensing law and for the authorities. A 14-year old boy’s life had been put at risk, and residents in the vicinity of the premises had had their lives blighted by anti-social behaviour. There was evidence that the premises had a reputation among young people as being somewhere they could buy alcohol.  The licence holder and his staff had totally disregarded their responsibilities, and had adversely affected the lives of a significant number of young people. He believed that there were no conditions that could be attached to the licence that would be effective, and therefore urged the Sub-Committee to revoke the licence.

In reply to a question from a member, Inspector Mildren stated that there was evidence that alcohol was sold to children with a mark-up of £1 or £2 on the usual selling price.

The Licence Holder had no questions to put to the Police or either of the witnesses.

Mr Zaheer Hussain stated his case. He apologised for what had happened and acknowledged that it had been unacceptable. He wished to retain the licence. He had appointed a new manager for the store with effect from 7^th June 2010 and a challenge 21 policy had been introduced. He would try his best to work with the new manger to resolve any problems. He believed that there had been no problems since the new manager had been appointed. The CCTV was now working properly.

A Member asked what specific measures would be implemented to prevent underage sales. Mr Aftab Hussain replied that no sales would be made without proof of age. The Member asked why it had taken so long before positive measures to prevent underage sales had been introduced. Mr Zaheer Hussain replied that CCTV recordings had not revealed any problems. He had built on what had been agreed at his meeting with the Police. He stated that the local residents liked his store and that he had received a lot of support. He said that he sponsored local charities. In reply to further question from Members, he said that he had been involved with other businesses and had not been able to give his exclusive attention to Bright Stores. He remained as Designated Premises Supervisor, but was now there all the time and no longer visited just once a week. He said that staff would receive licensing training. He would work with the staff to resolve any problems. He apologised that he had not taken action sooner.

The parties were invited to sum up.

Mr Zaheer Hussain said that he had nothing to add.

Mr Wood said that Mr Hussain had made promises, but he had made promises in the past and not kept them. The overwhelming priority was the protection of children from harm. It would send a weak message to the licensed trade if the License Holder were allowed to retain the licence despite the evidence that the Sub-Committee had heard.

Mr Purchase said that the Sub-Committee had heard plentiful evidence of a total disregard of the law. There had been numerous interventions from the authorities, which had not produced any improvement. This was the worst case that he had been involved in during his ten years with the Police.

Following an adjournment, the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to revoke the premises licence for Bright Stores. Authority was delegated to the Licensing Officer accordingly.

REASONS

Members have determined an application for a Review of a Premises Licence at Bright Stores, 16a, Windsor Villas, Bath.  In doing so they have reminded themselves of the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998. 

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act 2003 is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of real evidence. Further, they must only do what is necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives based on the evidence presented to them.

Members listened carefully to the applicant, took account of the representations from the Police, the Interested Parties and also took account of the representations made by the licence holder. Members were careful to balance the competing interests of the parties. 

Members heard that there were numerous calls to Trading Standards alleging that that the premises were selling alcohol to children. This led to a Trading Standards investigation and during a test purchase on the 10/02/10 cider was sold to a 16 year old boy by the store manager witnessed by a Trading Standards Officer. On the 17/03/10 the Premises Licence holder/Designated Premises Supervisor attended Bath Police Station where the operation of the premises was discussed and the suggestion made that the DPS should exercise more day-to-day control. It was agreed that a proof of age scheme was to be adopted and that the DPS exercised better day-to-day management of the premises. On the 17/05/10 further test purchases were carried out and underage sales witnessed; a 500ml bottle of cider was sold to a 16 year old boy and a 2ltr bottle of cider sold to another 16 year old boy.

Members heard that the premises have become known in the locality as being premises where young people can purchase alcohol and this has resulted in a steady increase in alcohol related crime and disorder amongst young people as they are attracted to the premises and remain in the vicinity of the premises to consume their purchases. Members further heard that a Fixed Penalty Notice had been issued for underage sales, criminal proceedings have been issued by the police, a child had been hospitalised after consuming alcohol he had purchased from the premises and numerous other complaints had been received by Trading Standards and the Police about underage sales.

Members noted that the Premises Licence holder did not challenge any of the evidence they were presented with.

The Premises Licence holder said he was very sorry and wanted to keep his licence. He accepted that improvements could be made but said he did not know anything about the problems until he was told about them by the Police. He said that in the past he could only visit the shop about once a week but intended to exercise better management control of the premises. He further stated that he had appointed a new manager, had adopted a proof of age scheme and given training to staff.

Members found the applicant’s evidence compelling that despite numerous interventions and advice from Trading Standards and the Police the premises continued to disregard the law. Members therefore revoked the Premises Licence because they do not consider a suspension would protect children from harm in the long term and further were not satisfied in the light of the evidence from all parties that the Premises Licence holder would be able to abide by any further conditions.