Agenda item
Application to Review the Premises Licence for (Old Ford Mini Market) 389 Old Ford Road, London E3 2LU
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corrine Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a review of the premises licence for Old Ford Mini Market, 389 Old Ford Road, London, E3 2LU. It was noted that the review had been brought by Trading Standards and was based on the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. Ms Holland brought the Sub-Committee’s attention to an error in the report and confirmed that during the inspection of the premises 260 Benson & Hedges cigarettes and 80 Marlboro cigarettes were suspected of being counterfeit and not 260/80 packs as detailed in the report. It was also noted that the premises had had a licence since 2005 and that the premises licence holder and DPS, Mr Raj Jani, took over the licence in 2019.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Alex Brander explained that the grounds of review concerned the storage and supply of illegal tobacco products on the premises contrary to the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder, as well as the supply of alcohol after licensable hours.
Mr. Brander told the Sub-Committee that on 19th October 2021 a routine inspection had been caried out at the Premises. Under the counter were found 260 Benson and Hedges cigarettes, which were suspected of being counterfeit, and 80 Marlboro Gold cigarettes which were suspected of being illicit due to non-compliance with certain packaging and labelling requirements. Mr. Jani was present at the time of the inspection and admitted during the inspection that he knew the cigarettes were counterfeit.
It was noted that during the course of the inspection one of the officers was accosted by a member of the public. The member of the public appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. During the inspection Mr. Jani took a can of beer and gave it to another member of the public outside the premises.
Ten days later, on 29th October 2021, Licensing Officers carried out a test purchase at the Premises and a can of Carlsberg lager was sold at 23:12 hours. The sale was made outside licensable hours, which ceased at 23:00 hours and therefore this was a breach of licensing conditions.
Mr Brander concluded that the premises licence holder had a blatant disregard for complying with the law or the conditions of the licence and therefore Trading Standards were seeking a revocation of the premises licence for failing to uphold the licensing objectives of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.
Members then heard from Mr Surenda Panchal, Licensing Agent on behalf of the premises licence holder. He told the Sub-Committee that the premises had been licensed since 2005 and that Mr. Jani had taken over the Premises in 2019 as the premise licence holder and DPS. He explained that there had been no problems at the premises prior to these incidents. Mr. Jani was said to have been running licensed premises since 2017, that he had trained staff, had a due diligence defence, and said that staff may have made a mistake.
Mr Panchal, further explained that there was no evidence of sales of the cigarettes and that they were left under the counter for Mr Jani to check. The account given was that somebody who supplied other goods offered Mr. Jani cigarettes. He said that he would need to check them first. However, while he was abroad, this person dropped the cigarettes off. His father, who was working there at the time, told him and Mr. Jani had said to him to leave them under the counter until his return.
Mr Panchal acknowledged that Mr Jani was at fault by keeping them at the premises but there was no intention to sell as he wanted to check their authenticity first.
Mr Panchal explained that the sale of alcohol outside hours was a mistake and misunderstanding on Mr Jani’s part because when the late-night levy was introduced, a minor variation was applied for to reduce the terminal hour to 23:00 hours. It was later realised that the licence could have allowed alcohol sales to 23:59 hours and they tried to get that authorisation back but had not done so during the period in question. Mr Panchal apologised to the Sub-Committee on behalf of Mr Jani for not communicating this message to staff.
Mr Panchal explained that following the inspections by officers, lots of improvements had been made at the premises and then questioned why officers had not gone back to visit the premises or conducted any further test purchases to check whether Mr Jani was complying with the conditions of his licence.
Mr Panchal explained that Mr Jani was a good and responsible operator and was very sorry for the breaches and urged members to consider a suspension of the licence in this instance rather than revocation of the premises licence.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That according to Mr. Jani’s account, the cigarettes had been dropped off that same day the seller visited the premises and that he had not had time to check them. However earlier on in the hearing, it had been said that Mr Jani was unaware of the box of cigarettes and did not realise that they were there as he was abroad when they were delivered.
- Mr Panchal told the Sub-Committee that as soon as Mr. Jani found out the cigarettes were counterfeit he did not wish to sell them.
- It was accepted that it was a coincidence that during the two visits made by officers, the two breaches had occurred.
- That payment for the cigarettes had not been made as Mr Jani wanted to check quality of the products first.
- That it was normal to have different wholesaler representatives visit the premises and sell goods and products.
- That according to Mr Panchal the day the cigarettes were dropped off to the shop, was the same day the officers had come to inspect the premises.
Concluding remarks were made by both parties.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licensing objectives:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm.
Consideration
The Sub-Committee considered an application by Alex Brander, on behalf of Tower Hamlets Trading Standards, for a review of the premises licence held by Raj Singh Jani in respect of Old Ford Mini Market, 389 Old Ford Road, London, E3 2LU (“the Premises”). The review was based on the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.
Mr. Brander told the Sub-Committee that on 19th October 2021 a routine inspection had been caried out at the Premises. Under the counter were found 260 Benson and Hedges cigarettes, which were suspected of being counterfeit, and 80 Marlboro Gold cigarettes which were suspected of being illicit due to non-compliance with certain packaging and labelling requirements. Mr. Jani was present at the time of the inspection and admitted during the inspection that he knew the cigarettes were counterfeit.
During the course of the inspection one of the officers was accosted by a member of the public. During the inspection Mr. Jani took a can of beer and gave it to another member of the public outside the premises.
Ten days later, on 29th October 2021, Licensing Officers carried out a test purchase at the Premises and a can of Carlsberg lager was sold at 23:12 hours. Licensable activity should have ceased at 23:00 hours.
On behalf of the licence holder the Sub-Committee was told that the Premises had been licensed since 2005 and that Mr. Jani had taken over the Premises in 2019. There had been no problems at the Premises prior to these incidents. Mr. Jani was said to have been running licensed premises since 2017, that he had trained staff, had a due diligence defence, and that the staff may have made a mistake.
With regard to the cigarettes the Sub-Committee was told that there was no evidence of sales. The account given was that somebody who supplied other goods offered Mr. Jani cigarettes. He said that he would need to check them first. While he was abroad, this person dropped the cigarettes off. His father, who was working there at the time, told him and Mr. Jani said to leave them under the counter until his return.
When this was explored further by members, Mr. Jani’s account was that they had been dropped off that same day, around 10:00 hours, and that he had not had time to check them. Earlier in the course of the hearing, however, he had said that he was unaware of the box of cigarettes and did not realise that they were there. Mr. Jani’s agent told the Sub-Committee that as soon as Mr. Jani found out the cigarettes were counterfeit he did not wish to sell them.
As regards the alcohol sale, the Sub-Committee was told that the Premises previously held a later licence. However, when the late-night levy was introduced, a minor variation was applied for to reduce the terminal hour to 23:00 hours. It was later realised that the licence could have allowed alcohol sales to 23:59 hours and they tried to get that authorisation back.
This application engages the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder and, to a lesser extent, the prevention of public nuisance. The Sub-Committee understands that its function is not to determine guilt or innocence but to determine what measures would be appropriate to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee found the licence holder’s explanations to be wholly unconvincing. It is noted that Mr. Jani was also the DPS and therefore held a position of responsibility. As far as the cigarettes were concerned, the Sub-Committee considered that these was not likely to be samples that had been dropped off. Even if they were, however, Mr. Jani’s accounts were inconsistent with one another. Despite admitting at the time that he knew the cigarettes to be counterfeit and illicit, he also asserted that he did not know that they were present or he had no time to check them. Regardless of which account is in fact true, they should not have been present on the Premises. Combined with the fact that he was not getting them from a usual supplier and that, by his own account, he had said he’d need to check them first, he at least had suspicions about the items yet nonetheless chose to keep them on the Premises and under the counter, where there was an obvious risk of their being sold. If that is not correct, however, he clearly had some suspicion as to their provenance and took no measures to address that.
In this context the sale of alcohol outside permitted hours is less serious. However, the Sub-Committee understood that the variation to avoid being caught by the late-night levy had been made some time ago and the licence holder must have known what the permitted hours were. The Sub-Committee considered it reasonable to infer that this was unlikely to be an isolated incident.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered all the options open to it. It did not consider that doing nothing, imposing conditions, or removing the DPS would suffice either alone or in combination. Mr. Jani’s agent submitted that this was not a case that warranted revocation and that the Sub-Committee could suspend. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that this would address matters. Leaving aside the confused accounts, it was not clear that the licence holder really accepted any responsibility. He had only been operating the Premises for two years and the Sub-Committee considered it reasonable to infer that these issues had existed prior to 19th October 2021. The Sub-Committee has paid particular regard to paragraphs 11.26 to 11.28 of the statutory guidance and notes that some problems may occur despite the best efforts of management. This is not such a case. The use of the Premises for the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco is something to be taken particularly seriously and justifies revocation even at first instance. The Sub-Committee is satisfied that revocation is the only appropriate and proportionate step that will suffice to promote the licensing objectives.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a review of the Premises Licence for Old Ford Mini Market, 389 Old Ford Road, London E3 2LU be GRANTED with the revocation of the premises licence.
Supporting documents: