Agenda item - Rolyn's News Review Committee Report

106.1    The Panel considered a report of the Head of Planning and Public Protection for an application for a review of a premises licence for Rolyn’s News, 57A North Road, Brighton. In attendance was the applicant, Catriona MacBeth Fair Trading Officer, Trading Standards, the Premises Licence Holder Mr Mina Bashir, the DPS Mrs Dina Abadir and their agents Mr Andy Grimsey and Mr Doug Simmons. Inspector Apps attended to make a representation in support of the application.

106.2    The Licensing Manager, Jean Cranford, provided an overview of the application. The premises was a small newsagent and off-licence. The application for review had been made by Trading Standards following the seizure of counterfeit and non-duty paid alcohol. One representation in support of the application had been received from Sussex Police. The options available to the Panel were highlighted, and their attention was drawn to Annex A of the Councils Statement of Licensing Policy in relation to ‘Problem Premises on Probation’ – red and yellow cards: how it would work’.

106.3    The Chair invited questions for the Licensing Officer. There were none.

106.4    The Chair invited Ms Macbeth to set out the grounds of the application for review. Problems with sale of counterfeit and non-duty paid alcohol existed across the city; the first visit to the premises had taken place in June 2011 when it had been observed that 70cl bottles of vodka were being sold at a price only marginally above the duty level. During the same visit three bottles of whiskey were found with false labels; there was a lack of clarity to relation to what advice was given to the premises after the first visit.

              During a second visit to the premises 70cl bottles of vodka and whiskey were found with false labels and duty stamps as well as counterfeit vodka and cases of vodka, wine, gin and lager which were of concern. Invoices for some of these products had been provided but there were discrepancies in relation to dates and quantities. Hand written invoices had been provided for Shield International and both Trading Standards and Customs had been unable to find a supplier by this name, and the VAT number had been confirmed as false.

              Reference was made to cases of Vodka Drops where the invoice showed two cases and three were found on the premises; the operators had claimed they received the third case free. The cost, if a third free case were provided, would be below the level of duty of a product of this size and strength. Ms Macbeth pointed to the potential health risk posed with the sale of counterfeit and illegal alcohol.

106.5    The Chair invited questions from the Panel for Ms Macbeth. It was confirmed that all alcohol products sold in the UK needed to be understood by the consumer, and, as such, an element of the label would need to be in English.

              Trading Standards had approached Bookers to discuss their return policies as there was the potential that some of the counterfeit products had entered their sales stream in this manner. In relation to the barcode it was explained that counterfeit labels normally used to the same barcode.

106.6    The Chair invited questions from the representatives for the applicant. There were none.

106.7    The Chair invited questions from the Licence Holders for the applicant. It was confirmed that in June 2010 no visit was made by Trading Standards as the matter had been referred to Customs to undertake their own visits.

              Ms Macbeth stated it was difficult for her to make an assessment of how hard it was for an untrained eye to recognise counterfeit alcohol as she approached such products as a trained professional. She stated that it was important for proprietors to be vigilant, and buying products in cash should always be of concern. Mr Grimsey and Ms Macbeth discussed the invoices that had been provided; she reiterated that there were inconsistencies with quantities and production dates.

              Trading Standards currently offered no specific training courses on counterfeit and illegal sales, but offered advice to premises during inspection visits.

              The alcohol that had been identified as suspicious was still in situ as only Customs had the power to seize it.

              Trading Standards had been aware of issues in relation to Always4U for approximately two years, but could not disclose anymore details on the matter due to ongoing investigations,

              A warning was not issued to the premises in 2010 as the discussion held with the operators at the time was deemed sufficient and the enforcement side was left to be addressed by Customs.

106.8    The Chair invited Inspector Apps to make his representation in support of the application. It was recognised that this was a citywide problem. Sussex Police had attended the visit on 8 July and witnessed the refusal of five known street drinkers; however, it was noted that this seemed a lot for this time of day, and some of the refused customers was heard saying that they did not normally have problems being served at the premises. The premises had also voluntarily removed beers, lagers and ciders above 6% ABV volume; it was noted the refusal book was up to date and the CCTV was fully operationally despite some downloading and access problems, which had now been rectified. 

106.9    The Chair invited questions from the Panel for Inspector Apps. It was confirmed that if the Panel were minded to refuse the application for revocation Sussex Police would seek the addition of a condition restricting sales of beers, lagers and ciders above 6% ABV volume and a restriction to the current licensable hours.

              The premises had passed all joint test purchases from Sussex Police and Trading Standards.

106.10  The Chair invited the Licence Holders to put forward their case. Mrs Dina Abadir explained she had been the DPS of the premises since it was purchased in July 2009, and had worked at the premises seven days a week until the birth of her daughter; she now split her time. The premises was run as a family business and was the sole source of income. Both Mrs Abadir and her husband were active members of their local church community. It was not the intention of the premises to supply or sell counterfeit or illegal alcohol and they were shocked when the products were found on the premises.

              Mr Grimsey went on to add he hoped there was an alternative to revocation, and asked that the Panel consider a period of suspension to enable Dina Abadir to undertake training to DPS Level 2 and Mina Bashir to train to become a Personal Licence Holder. The Licence Holders had agreed to the condition on the strength of beers, lagers and ciders, and proposed reducing the licensable hours to 2300 in the evenings.

106.11  The Chair invited questions from the Panel. Mr Bashir explained that the free cases of alcohol did not appear on invoices; only the delivery note, and he did not keep the delivery notes due the amount of paperwork. He was able to produce examples of where free stock was listed on delivery notes; however, this was not for purchases of stock that had been identified by Trading Standards as potentially illegal or counterfeit. 

106.12  The Chair invited questions from the applicant. The Premises Licence Holder kept all invoices and receipts for his accountant, but he had no detailed knowledge of how VAT or duty should be paid.

              The Personal Licence Holder course attended by Mrs Abadir had not covered any material on counterfeit or illegal alcohol; although, her father-in-law had recently attended such training and there was some information on this in the handbook.

              Normally alcohol was purchased from Bookers, and Shields had only been used on a few occasions as they offered to deliver which saved Mr Bashir the car journey and time. Mr Bashir had not found anything suspicious as the delivery was made in the day time in a busy and central area of the city; Mr Bashir had paid in cash from the premises.

The premises had all invoices since they had started trading over two years ago.

All the Glens vodka on the premises had been purchased from Bookers.

              The Licence Holders were satisfied that they had provided invoices for all the products found on the premises despite the inconsistencies raised by Trading Standards.

106.13  The Chair asked for summaries.

              The Licensing Manager highlighted the steps available to the premises at a review, and reference was made to Section 11.26 and 11.27 of the Councils Statement of Licensing Policy.

              Ms Macbeth stated that counterfeit and illegal alcohol had been discovered at the premises, and the premises had continued to use disreputable wholesalers since the application for review. Trading Standards did consider the future of a business when making an application for review; but was of the mind that revocation was appropriate to uphold the Licensing Objectives.

              Inspector Apps noted the cooperation of the premises, but stated that ignorance of an offence did not excuse it. It was noted some of the behaviours associated with counterfeit alcohol were very serious. Revocation was justified; however, if the Panel was minded to turn down the application additional conditions would need to added, and the operators would need to be much more vigilant and provide a full audit trail for all stock purchases.

              Mr Grimsey appreciated that there had been some naivety on the part of the operators; but they had been able to provide the Panel with a full audit trail for all their stock purchases which had been signed off by their accountant. It was appropriate to suspend the licence to allow further training and impose a reduction in the hours of hours of operation.

106.14  The Panel retired to make their decision.

106.15  RESOLVED - The Panel had listened carefully to all the arguments put forward in this review and heard evidence from Trading Standards and the Police that criminal activity had taken place in the form of sales of counterfeit and smuggled goods and a failure on the part of the Licence Holder to make the necessary checks to ensure traceability and legality of their stock.

However, the Panel also noted that the premises had fully co-operated with the Responsible Authorities and had offered to undertake training and modify the operating conditions.

The Panel considered a suspension of two months would enable Dina Abadir to undertake training to DPS Level 2 and Mina Bashir to train to become a Personal Licence Holder, and act as a deterrent from allowing the problems that gave rise to the review to happen again; and was consistent with the current Licensing Enforcement Policy.

The Panel accepted the Licence Holder and owners offer to change the licensed hours to 1000 to 2300 daily and that no beers lagers or ciders with ABV volume exceeding 6% be sold.

The Panel stated that this action was a necessary and proportionate response to the review, and would promote the Licensing objectives.