Minutes:
The Sub-Committee and Officers withdrew from the meeting to enable the Sub-Committee to consider its decision.
On returning, the Chairman notified the hearing that the decision of the Sub-Committee was to suspend the premises licence for three months.
The Sub-Committee considered the evidence of both the police as Responsible Authority and the reviewee via his legal representative. There were no representations from interested parties.
The Sub-Committee considered and took into account the duties imposed on it under the Licencing Act 2003 and the National Guidelines (s182).
It was acknowledged by the Sub-Committee that it was only concerned with the licensing objective of the prevention of crime. Its task was not to punish criminal act or acts of premises licence holders which was beyond its remit. The Sub-Committee also acknowledged that any decision it made must be reasonable and proportionate to advance the directive of the prevention of crime.
In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee sought to establish the cause of concern to the police in bringing this review and to identify appropriate action that would be both reasonable and proportionate. In this case, the cause of concern was the sale of cheap, illicit tobacco.
The Sub-Committee accepted that there was a new premises licence holder on the premises who was also the new Designated Premises Supervisor. Evidence was given at the review that the new owner was of good character. On this basis, it was argued on behalf of the new owner that there should be no revocation or suspension and that conditions preventing previous members of staff from entering the premises would be reasonable and proportionate. The Sub-Committee concluded that the new owner had not been in the position long enough to establish whether he would run the premises within the licensing requirements. He would be expected to do so.
However, the Sub-Committee also noted at paragraph 11.26 of the Guidelines that the Licensing Authority’s duty was to take steps with a view to the promotion of the licensing objectives and the prevention of illegal working in the interests of the wider community and not those of the individual licence holder.
The Sub-Committee also noted that paragraph 11.27 of the Guidelines highlighted that the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco as being particularly serious. Paragraph 11.28 stated that such reviews should be used effectively to deter such activities and crime.
The Guidance went on to say that where such reviews arose and the Licensing Authority determined that the crime prevention objective was being undermined through the premises being used to further crime, it was expected that revocation of the licence even at first instance should be seriously considered.
The Sub-Committee gave consideration to the fact that the premises licence holder had not been in the position long enough to assess how he would run the premises, but accepted that he had never been a party to the sale of illicit tobacco. However, the Sub-Committee was concerned that the premises still attracted people hoping to buy cheap tobacco which constituted ongoing criminal activity and undermined the licensing objective. This was the evidence of the police.
The Sub-Committee seriously considered revoking the licence as required by the Guidance, but decided to give the new Designated Premises Supervisor the opportunity to run the premises within the licensing regime and to dissipate the reputation the premises currently had of selling illicit tobacco.