Agenda item

Report CSL018 by the Community Safety and Licensing Service Manager.

(Enclosure)

Decision:

That the premise licence for the sale of alcohol for the premises known as Zorbas 4, Broad Street, Stamford be revoked.

The Solicitor to the Committee introduced those present and confirmed who was to speak in connection with the application for the review.  Emma Milligan (Lincolnshire Safer Communities Trading Standards), PC Figgitt (Licensing Officer Lincolnshire Police) and Mr Kaya (Premises Licence Holder).

The Licensing Officer presented report CSL018 which concerned an application for a premise licence review under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003.  The premise under review was Zorbas 4, Stamford which held two premises licences, one for late night refreshment and one for the sales of alcohol. A review for the premise licence for the sale of alcohol had been submitted by Lincolnshire Safer Communities Trading Standards.  The review had been asked for on grounds relating to the prevention of crime and disorder.   In May 2012 the premises had been inspected by Lincolnshire Safer Communities Trading Standards and Lincolnshire Police.  During the inspection two bottles of counterfeit Smirnoff Vodka and five bottles of Extra Vodka displaying invalid duty stamps had been found.  The bottles were seized by Trading Standards as evidence and samples submitted to their public analyst.  A certificate of analysis was received for the Smirnoff Vodka which stated that the sample was unfit for human consumption, failing to meet the food safety requirements under food legislation.  The certificate of analysis for the Vodka Extra was received and no food safety concerns were raised. However, Bemrose Booth who were solely responsible for the UK duty stamps confirmed that the labels affixed to bottles three and four of those seized were counterfeit as the numbers were not registered on their data base.   As well as witness statements from Lincolnshire Trading Standards, Lincolnshire Police had also submitted a representation supporting the review by Trading Standards.

Emma Milligan from Lincolnshire Safer Communities Trading Standards then presented their case. She briefly gave the Committee background information on the work that they undertook targeting stores which sold counterfeit alcohol and referred to the extensive media campaigns about illegal alcohol and tobacco.  She referred to the bottles of vodka that had been seized and the samples from the Smirnoff Vodka that indicated the presence of iso-propanal which was used as a denaturant and was not fit for public consumption. A sample had also been sent to the Trade Mark holder who had also confirmed that the product was not genuine and therefore was in breach of the Trade Marks Act 1994. 

She then referred to the bottles of Vodka Extra which had been confirmed were displaying incorrect duty stamps. As the premise licence holder had not supplied receipts for these products it was assumed that the products were non UK duty paid.  She asked the Committee to consider revoking the alcohol licence as evidence suggested that criminal activities were being carried out at the premises.

PC Figgitt from Lincolnshire Police confirmed the police’s support of the review request from Lincolnshire Trading Standards, due to the seized counterfeit goods and the confirmed non duty paid on the bottles of Extra Vodka.

Questions were asked about the iso-propanal to which Emma Milligan replied. One of the Members present had worked with iso-propanal and said that it de-fats the skin and if swallowed would strip internal organs of fat.

 For clarity the Solicitor to the Committee confirmed what items had been found as counterfeit (2 bottles of Smirnoff Vodka) and what items had non duty paid on them (5 bottles of Extra Vodka).

Mr Kaya the license premise holder then made his representation. He replied that during the period when the goods were found he was not at the shop due to personal reasons, he had left the management of the shop to his brother and a friend.  The friend had indicated that his uncle owned a supermarket and he could get vodka cheaper.  Mr Kaya was unaware that it was counterfeit.  Mr Kaya had previously used a cash and carry and had kept all invoices, although none had been presented for the counterfeit goods.

Questions were then asked of Mr Kaya about the management of the premises, the menus showing the Extra Vodka and receipts for the goods to which Mr Kaya replied. 

A Member asked if the premises had been visited before by Trading Standards to which Emma Milligan replied that this had been the first visit.  PC Figgitt replied that the premises had been visited by the police but not in connection with this issue.

The Licensing Officer then gave her closing statement. She reminded Members of the options open to the Committee in relation to the review of Zorbas 4, Broad Street, Stamford.  The Committee could:

-       Modify the conditions of the licence

-       Exclude a licensable activity  from the licence

-       Remove the designated premise supervisor

-       Suspend the licence for a period not exceeding 3 months:

-       Or revoke the licence

If the committee decided that none of the above steps was appropriate, then they need take no action.  The Licensing Authority should as far as possible seek to establish the cause or causes of the concerns which the representations identified and the remedial action taken should generally be directed at those causes and should be no more than an appropriate and proportionate  response.

Emma Milligan from Safer Communities Trading Standards then gave her closing statement. She said from the evidence presented to the committee the management had little or no control over the day to day running of the premise and the licence was being used to gain financially from crime and therefore were not promoting the licensing objectives.  Iso-propanal which was found in the seized goods was used as a solvent and in cleaning fluids and the product would not have gone through any hygiene or quality control.  The products also displayed illegal duty stamps and no duty paid receipts had been produced.  The products were on a menu which had been for sale for between one and three months.  She asked the committee to strongly consider revoking the licence in accordance with Section 11 of the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

For clarity the Solicitor to the Committee advised the Chair that as Lincolnshire Police were supporting the review by Trading Standards they would not usually have an opportunity to give a closing statement. Trading Standards had an opportunity as applicants for the review and the licence holder had an opportunity as respondent to the review but to allow Lincolnshire Police to make a closing statement in addition would tip the balance of fairness against the licence holder.

Mr Kaya, the premise license holder then gave his closing statement. He referred once again to his personal life and admitted that he had trusted the wrong people to manage his premise and that he should have paid more attention to what was going on at the premise.

(10.45am the Licensing Officers, Trading Standards and all interested parties left the meeting)

Members considered the information they had before them and the representations that had been made.  Grave concern was expressed about the content of the seized goods and the damage they could have done. The Committee was concerned about public safety in addition to the prevention of crime and disorder.   Following comments made by the Solicitor to the Committee that any decision should be appropriate and proportionate the Committee discussed a susoension of the licence. However in the particular circumstances and with regard to the evidence and representations received it was proposed, seconded that the issue was so serious as to require a the premise licence for the sale of alcohol to be revoked. The Committee was particularly mindful of the risk of harm from the sale of spirits unfit for human consumption and the crime associated with the sale of counterfeit goods. The Committee did not find any mitigating circumstances which had affected the applicant and they thought a three month suspension was an inadequate remedy when considered against the promotion of the licensing objectives of public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder.

(11.06am the Licensing Officers, Trading Standards and all interested parties returned to the meeting)

The Solicitor to the Committee read out the decision. The Committee had considered all representations made by all parties.  The Premise License holder had responsibility for the supervision and management for the goods on sale at the premise.  The Committee were satisfied that there was evidence that counterfeit spirits and spirits for which the duty had not been paid were on sale at the premise, consequently the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder  and especially public safety were being undermined and it was an appropriate and proportionate response in the circumstances, to revoke the licence.  The licence holder was reminded that the decision was appealable to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of written notification of the decision.