Agenda item

All parties will receive formal written confirmation of the decision and reasons.

This hearing was held as a virtual meeting using Microsoft Teams.

The Sub-Committee determined that the hearing should proceed with the press and public excluded.  This decision was made in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005. The papers contain personal details and details of an ongoing police investigation and it was determined that the public interest in doing so outweighed the public interest in the hearing in accordance with Regulation 14.

The Sub-Committee has considered very carefully the application by Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary for a review of a premises licence for a premises in Southampton as submitted in the report of the Service Director - Place. 

It has given due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, statutory guidance and the Licensing Objective of the prevention of crime and disorder and the adopted statement of Licensing Policy. 

The Human Rights Act 1998, The Equality Act 2010 and The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Section 17 have been considered whilst making the decision. 

The Sub-Committee considered the application as submitted and heard representations from the police, the premises licence holder and his representative, and from Licensing.

The Sub-Committee considered the representations, both written and given orally today, by all parties. The Sub-Committee noted that Trading Standards supported the application but were unable to attend.

RESOLVED In light of all the above the Sub-Committee decided that the premises licence should be revoked.

Reasons

The Sub-Committee considered very carefully the application of the police with regard for the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance and the adopted statement of Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee viewed the CCTV footage from the store and together with the evidence submitted by the police were satisfied that stolen goods were purchased. The Sub-Committee were of the view that the value of stolen items could have been contained within the bag seen on CCTV as it would have amounted to around 150 chocolate bars.

The Sub-Committee took into account the police evidence that the thief had ridden over a mile directly to this store to sell the stolen goods. On a balance of probabilities, the Sub-Committee concluded that this was not an ad hoc sale but had probably been arranged in advance and was likely not to have been a one-off incident. The Sub-Committee was satisfied therefore that the Licensing Objective of prevention of Crime and Disorder was being failed by this premises.

The Sub-Committee was deeply concerned regarding the management of the premises. By his own admission the licence holder had left the store under the control of an untrained acquaintance of a few months. He had left the keys to the premises in an unsecure location and criminal activity had taken place in the store. This person did not have the right to work at the store and the licence holder’s checks were not good enough.  Unless he was absolutely sure, the appropriate action would have been to close the store.

The Sub-Committee were also concerned that the licence holder was unable to obtain assistance from trained staff when on two occasions the acquaintance assisted. On both these occasions there was plenty of notice of the appointments.

With regard to the police enquiry of 18^th April there was an inconsistency in that the reason given for failing to provide CCTV and staff details was that legal advice was awaited and yet the refusals log requested at the same time was provided.

During the hearing it transpired that the licence holder had changed address in 2022 and had failed to notify the Licensing Department. This along with the poor management and failed immigration checks demonstrated a failure to take seriously the duties of being a licence holder. As such the Sub-Committee had grave doubts as to the licence holder’s ability to promote any of the Licensing objectives. 

The Sub-Committee considered all the options set out in Section 52(4) Licensing Act 2003 (namely):

To modify the conditions of the licence – it was not felt that additional conditions would address the issues raised.

To exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence – alcohol provision is the only licensable activity and removal of this is equivalent to revocation.

To remove the designated premises supervisor – this would not change the licence holder, and this would not therefore address the concerns.

To suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months – a suspension was not deemed appropriate in this case as it would not address the issues raised.

To revoke the licence – this was the only remaining option and was deemed to be reasonable and proportionate in this case.

There is a statutory right of appeal against this decision to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of formal notification of the decision, which will set out that right in full.