Agenda item

An application for a Review of a Premises Licence in respect of KS News, 120 Oxford Street, Bilston, Wolverhampton, WV14 7EA, had been received from Trading Standards.

The Chair led round-table introductions and outlined the procedure to be followed. All parties confirmed they understood the procedure.

Elizabeth Gregg, Senior Licensing and Compliance Officer, provided an outline of the application. Dianne Slack, Tobacco Control Officer for Trading Standards (applicant), confirmed that the summary was accurate.

The Chair invited Trading Standards to present their application. Dianne Slack, Tobacco Control Officer, did so as per Appendix 3 of the report and Page 3 of the supplementary agenda pack.

The Chair afforded all parties present the opportunity to question the applicant in relation to her submission. Dianne Slack, Tobacco Control Officer provided responses to questions asked.

The Chair invited the Premises Licence Holder to make representations.

Mr Karanveer Singh, Premises Licence Holder, stated the following:

1.    He had owned the business since August 2016.

2.    He had employed people he trusted to run the business.

3.    He had no experience in this type of business.

4.    He had a full-time job as a transport manager and his priority was to his other business interests.

5.    He rarely visited the premises.

6.    He intended to sell the business.

The Chair afforded all parties present the opportunity to question Mr Singh in relation to his submission.

Mr Singh provided responses to questions asked.

The Chair invited the Licensing Authority to make representations. Mrs Elaine Moreton, Licensing Section Leader, did so as per Appendix 6 of the report.

The Chair invited all parties present to question the Licensing Authority in relation to its submission. No questions were asked.

The Chair invited Public Health to make representations. Parpinder Singh, Senior Public Health Specialist, did so as per Appendix 5 of the report.

The Chair invited all parties present to question Public Health in relation to its submission. Parpinder Singh and Ankush Mittal, Public Health Consultant, provided responses to questions asked.

The Chair invited all parties present to make their final address.

Parpinder Singh presented a summary on behalf of Public Health.

Elaine Moreton presented a summary on behalf of the Licensing Authority.

Dianne Slack presented a summary on behalf of Trading Standards.

All interested parties, with the exception of the Senior Solicitor and the Democratic Services Officer, withdrew from the meeting to enable the Sub-Committee to determine the matter.

All interested parties were invited back to the meeting and the Chair advised them of the decision of the Sub-Committee, which was read out in full by the Senior Solicitor.

Resolved:

At the hearing to review the premises licence, members of the Licensing Sub-Committee considered all written evidence and listened carefully to all representations made by persons who spoke at the hearing. They considered all the evidence presented and found the following facts:

They heard from the applicant that:

1. On 8 December 2018 and 23 January 2019 Trading Standards had received information that illicit cigarettes and tobacco were being sold from the premises.
2. On 15 February 2019 Trading Standards visited the premises and discovered 9860 cigarette sticks and 969 Sildenafil Citrate 100mg tablets. The Licensing-Sub Committee were told that although these were not a classified drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act, they were classified as a pharmacy medicine and that there were no patient instructions or warnings with the tablets.
3. On 25 February 2019 KS News were issued with a written warning by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
4. The seized goods included a large number of cigarettes known as foreign cheap whites, which were foreign brands brought into the UK illegally. Officers had also discovered English branded tobacco products that were not in the standardised packaging.
5. To knowingly keep or allow to be kept on relevant premises, goods such as cigarettes, which had been imported without payment of duty or which had otherwise been unlawfully imported was a criminal offence under section 144(1) and (3) of the LA 2003.
6. Guidance under section 182 of LA 2003 at paragraph 11.27 suggests that sale and distribution of controlled drugs together with the sale of counterfeit/illicit tobacco, where premises were used the further crime revocation should be considered even in the first instance.
7. On 8 July 2019 Trading Standards visited the premises with West Midlands Police and discovered 12 packets (240 sticks) of illegal cigarettes not bearing UK safety warnings. They also discovered counterfeit and non-duty paid alcohol.
8. This Trading Standards operation was intelligence led.
9. The concern of Trading Standards was that the sale of illicit and counterfeit cigarettes and tobacco was a crime that was not victimless. It contributes to the shadow economy, drives down the cost of tobacco which counteracts the government attempt to use price as a disincentive in relation to smoking and the action undermines public health.
10. The Prevention of Crime and Disorder Licensing Objection had been undermined.
11. This was serious criminal activity and therefore the applicant would request revocation of the licence.

They heard from Mr Karanveer Singh, the PLH and DPS that:

1. He had owned the business since August 2016.
2. He had a full-time job as a transport manager and his priority was to his other business interests.
3. He had employed people who were not part of his immediate family and he had no experience in this type of business.
4. Trading Standards had probably visited the premises more times than Mr Singh.
5. He was not able to name the four Licensing Objectives.
6. He had trusted his staff but now planned to sell the business.
7. He accepted that as the PLH and DPS, he was ultimately responsible under the Licensing Act.

They considered evidence from West Midlands Police that:

1.                                                     The police authority supported the application of Trading Standards.

2.      The possession and sale of illicit tobacco and non-prescribed drugs was an offence.

3.      The Licensing Objective of the prevention of crime and disorder had been seriously undermined.

4.      Revocation of the premises licence was appropriate in the first instance.

They heard from Mrs Moreton, Licensing Authority as responsible authority that:

1. The authority supported the application of Trading Standards.
2. There had been illegal activities on the premises.
3. The had been blatant disregard for the crime and disorder and public safety Licensing Objectives.
4. Mr Singh as PLH and DPS remained responsible for the licensable activities at the premises.
5. Revocation of the premises licence was appropriate in the first instance.

They heard from Public Health that:

1.                                                     They supported the application of Trading Standards.

2.      There was concern regarding the significant amount of illicit tobacco seized on the premises.

3.                                                     The criminal activity did not promote the Licensing Objectives.

4.                                                     The management at the premises had not changed.

5.      The actions of the premises encouraged the sale of illicit products to vulnerable people.

6.      They were not reassured that the business was operating in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003.

7.      With reference to s182 LA 2003 revocation was recommended in the first instance.

The Sub-Committee could take such steps as it considered appropriate for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives.

Paragraphs 11.27 and 11.28 of the revised Guidance under s182 of the Licensing Act 2003 provides premises that had been used for the criminal activity of the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco should be treated particularly seriously, and where reviews arise and it was determined that the prevention of crime and disorder Licensing Objective was being undermined through the premises being used to further crime, it was expected that revocation of the premises licence should be seriously considered, even in the first instance.

The Sub-Committee were satisfied that criminal activity had taken place at the premises and that the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective was being undermined through the premises being used to further crimes. Further they were satisfied that the activity did not promote the public safety Licensing Objective.

Based upon the evidence presented and having regard to the application, representations made, guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s own licensing policy, the Sub-Committee, on the balance of probabilities, found that in order to promote the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety Licensing Objectives the premises licence of KS News should be revoked in accordance with Section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003.

This action was considered appropriate and proportionate for the promotion of the crime and disorder and public safety Licensing Objectives.

Written notice of the determination would be given to the holder of the licence, the applicant, and any other person who made relevant representations.

An appeal could be made against the decision by the applicant, the holder of the Premises Licence or any other person who made a relevant representation to the application, within 21 days from the day on which notice of the decision was given.