Agenda and minutes

To confirm the procedures for the hearings (attached).

The procedures were noted.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To hear and determine an application made by the Metropolitan Police for the review of a premises licence.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

Mr Mailvaganam Kirupakaran – premises licence holder

Mr Nadarajah Navaratnarajah – premises licence holder

PC John McGann – representing the police as responsible authority

PC McGann introduced the police’s review application.  He said that this review was requested as a result of a second failed test purchase involving an underage sale.  The police, following the first failed test purchase, sought to work with the licence holders in order to resolve various issues with the store’s procedures and their compliance with the Licensing Act 2003.  As part of this, four additional conditions were added to the licence relating to the provision of CCTV, training records, a register of authorised sellers and a record of refused alcohol sales.

After the second failed test purchase, the police requested the store’s CCTV for the time around the incident.  Although this was received, the disc did not work and the police had yet to receive a working version.  PC McGann commented on the training record, which he felt was inadequate and did not show that any training had been carried out.

A letter from Sgt Will Jack, local safer neighbourhood team leader, was brought to the Sub-Committee’s attention.  In it, Sgt Jack described the efforts being made to reduce antisocial behaviour in the area and how he believed alcohol sales from Mortlake Newsagents was a major contributor to his workload.

Pc McGann summed up by clarifying that he was seeking revocation of the licence in the first instance, or in the very least, a significant change to the conditions of the licence.

Following questions from members of the sub-committee, members were advised that:

·         PC McGann felt that the licence holders did understand the consequences of what had happened.

·         The training records provided were not typical of the type of record licence holders were expected to maintain; the record provided was a printed guide with subsequently annotated records at the back.

·         The register of refused sales had not been seen although it had not been specifically requested.

Mr Kirupakaran and Mr Navaratnarajah were invited to put their case to the sub-committee.  They said that the shop had been operating since 2001, with very few problems until recently.  It was reported that more and more youths were attempting to buy alcohol from the store, with some taking advantage of the limited staffing and choosing to steal alcohol.  Staff were trained and instructed to refuse sales to underage people, which also applied to the sale of tobacco.

It was mentioned that the shop had been modified with the installation of CCTV and restricted access to the area where alcohol was on sale.  The number of children in store was also restricted to two at any one time.

In response to questions from PC McGann, the licence holders said that they did not believe the purchaser was underage as she resembled a regular customer of the shop.  PC McGann clarified the closing time of the shop, which was 6.00pm.

Following questions from members of the sub-committee, members were advised that:

·         The local safer neighbourhood team had been contacted about the thefts from the shop.

·         The CCTV was working at the time of the failed test purchase; Mr Kirupakaran and Mr Navaratnarajah were unsure why the copy supplied to the police failed to work.

·         The CCTV system was checked each morning.

·         The images from the CCTV system were archived on a hard-drive, where they could be retained or saved onto discs.

·         The thefts the store owners were aware of typically took place once or twice a week.

·         There was no record of each incident of theft.

·         Proof of age was requested each time, where the customer’s age was not known.

·         Neither Mr Kirupakaran and Mr Navaratnarajah had seen the licensing legislation.

·         There were often limited numbers of staff present in the store.

When asked, one of the licence holders did not know the minimum age for purchasing alcohol.

PC McGann mentioned in his closing statement that he felt Mr Kirupakaran and Mr Navaratnarajah were not capable of operating a premises licence.

Mr Kirupakaran and Mr Navaratnarajah closed by saying that they had been running the shop for around ten years with no issues.  They felt that a majority of the shop’s problems were related to thefts of alcohol by children.  It was added that they were trying to sell the store, so it was requested that the licence be retained in order to make selling it easier.

RESOLVED that the sub-committee REVOKE the premises licence for the following reasons:

·         “The Licensing Sub-Committee asked what the minimum age was for sales of alcohol, and although Mr Navaratnarajah answered correctly, Mr Kirupakaran could not give the correct answer. 

·         The Licensing Sub-Committee could not ascertain the number of staff that were on duty in the premises apart from Mr Kirupakaran.

·         The Licensing Sub-Committee could not be sure that Mr Navaratnarajah could properly authorise sales of alcohol, due to his absence from the premises on a long term basis.

·         The Licensing Sub-Committee considered that the Police had tried to help the premises to conform, but that management of the premises had not addressed the issues of underage sales.

·         Mr Navaratnarajah admitted that he had not been to the premises for a year.

·         The Licensing Sub-Committee were surprised that the Refusals Log was not brought to the hearing for the Police and Licensing Sub-Committee to consider.

·         The Licensing Sub-Committee were persuaded by the evidence of SNT Sgt Jacks who had been concerned with underage sales for 4 years from the premises and evidence in his witness statement that on stop and search incidents with underage drinkers in the area of Mortlake High Street, 50% admitted that the alcohol had been purchased from Mortlake Newsagents.  The Premises Licence Holders submitted that thefts from the store were partly responsible for the amount of alcohol found with children in the area.  The Licensing Sub-Committee thought that their inability to deal with thefts demonstrated that they would still not be able to comply with the conditions on the Premises Licence, remaining concerned whether the Premises Licence Holders were responsible enough to hold the Premises Licence.

·                     The removal of the DPS was considered, as an alternative to revocation, rendering the sale of alcohol prohibited until a new DPS is appointed, as the Premises Licence holders spoke about a potential sale of the business, but the Licensing Sub-Committee were concerned that underage sales would continue to be made and both to promote the licensing objectives in respect of the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm, had to revoke as they had no confidence in the managements ability to comply with the conditions on the Premises Licence.”

[The decision notice is attached to these minutes.]

To decide having regard to the particular nature of the business to be transacted, whether or not to exclude the press and public during consideration of the following items on the grounds that they were likely to disclose exempt information by virtue of Paragraph 2 of schedule 12 A (as amended) to the Local Government Act 1972.

Resolved that having regard to the particular nature of the business to be transacted during the consideration of the remaining item, on the grounds that it was likely to disclose exempt information by virtue of Paragraph 2, as defined in Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded.

To hear and determine an opposed application for the grant of a Personal Licence, made under section 117 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

RESOLVED that the applied for Personal Licence NOT BE GRANTED.