Report of the Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services detailing an application by Trading Standards and Hampshire Constabulary for review of a premises licence in respect of George’s, 6 Athelstan Road, Bitterne SO19 4DD, attached.
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered the application for review of a premises licence. (Copy of report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).
The Premises Licence Holder, Mr Dadds, Counsel for the Premises Licence Holder, Mr Marshall, Trading Standards and PC Lindley and PC Harris, Hampshire Constabulary were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
At Counsel’s request it was agreed by all parties that the Sub-Committee heard the application with the press and public excluded, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.
The Sub-Committee considered the decision in confidential session in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.
RESOLVED that the premises licence be revoked.
REASONS
The Sub-Committee considered carefully the application for review of the premises licence and gave due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance, the adopted statement of Licensing Policy, Human Rights legislation, representations, both written and given orally today by Hampshire Constabulary, Trading Standards and the premises licence holder and the additional evidence produced at the hearing with the consent of all parties.
The Sub Committee accepted legal advice that matters relating to other premises should not be taken into consideration when determining the review of this premises licence and accordingly they were excluded from consideration.
The Sub-Committee considered the sale of counterfeit alcohol very serious and the potential health implications for consumption of such alcohol by those purchasing alcohol at the premises could not be understated. In this regard the Sub-Committee considered the argument raised, that it was prevented by the Guidance from considering such, given that it related to public health and not public safety which concerned the physical aspects of the building itself and no more. That argument was rejected given the Guidance stating that public safety “was concerned with the physical safety of the people using the relevant premises”. If a consumer was ill as a result of consuming counterfeit alcohol it was considered that this affected their physical safety no less than a defective building. “Public health” was clearly referring to a wider section of the public and not the potential for harm to an individual as there was in this case.
The Sub-Committee noted the argument that the alcohol had been left behind by previous owners and the conflict in the evidence given as to when this type of counterfeit alcohol had been available. It made no determination on the point as it considered the failure to check on the validity of the alcohol in the first instance to be sufficient to show a lack of regard for the Licensing Objectives, which was emphasised by the fact that the premises had been the subject of a previous review and which therefore should have alerted the premises licence holder to the potential for an issue with the alcohol – irrespective of where it came from or when (and if) it had been purchased.
The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the sale of counterfeit and therefore most likely non-duty paid alcohol in this instance, in light of the previous proceedings and conditions imposed at that time were sufficient grounds for revocation, However, it noted that in addition there were clear breaches of conditions and the fact that the Challenge 25 policy had not been properly implemented had directly led to the sale of alcohol to a 17 year old girl. Underage sales were always taken very seriously.
The argument was raised that these proceedings effectively amounted to a “second bite of the cherry” and therefore fall foul of paragraph 11.13 of the Guidance. This argument was rejected on the basis that the Guidance referred specifically to taking proceedings where the previous had failed and that was not the case in this instance.
Accordingly, and in light of the significant evidence of the Police and Trading Standards relating to the sale of counterfeit alcohol combined with multiple breaches of conditions and an underage sale, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that revocation was the only option of all those available and that this was necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances.
Supporting documents: