Agenda item
Review of a premises licence in respect of Deni's New Swaton Road E3 4ES
Licensing Objectives:
· Protection of Children from Harm
· Prevention of Crime and Disorder
Representations:
· Trading Standards
· Licensing Authority
Ward: Bromley South
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered an application by Alex Brander, on behalf of Tower Hamlets Trading Standards, for the review of the premises licence held in respect of Denni’s News, 15 Swaton Road, London, E3 4ES (“the Premises”). The application followed an under-age sale at the Premises on 1st August 2022, which also indicated other breaches of the premises licence.
The application attracted representations in support from the Licensing Authority and from the Home Office. Trading Standards and the Licensing Authority sought the revocation of the licence.
The Sub-Committee was informed at the start of the hearing that there had been an application to transfer the licence from Dinesh Kanzaria to Manesha Sookun (his daughter and the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS)) the day before. That had been ineffective due to a failure to provide right to work documentation. However, a further application had been lodged in the afternoon shortly prior to the hearing, to take immediate effect. The Licensing Officer present confirmed that this was the case. The Sub-Committee was informed by the Legal Adviser that, subject to any objection by the police, the transfer appeared to be effective but that the review application would still proceed.
Trading Standards
Mr. Brander informed the Sub-Committee of the circumstances surrounding the under-age sale and the other issues found at the shop. These included non-functioning CCTV and no refusal book. The seller had apparently been left in the shop by a member of staff. It is not clear why that happened. The seller, however, gave his address as the shop and, when challenged, called Mr. Kanzaria directly on the phone.
Mr. Brander’s written application also referred to other problems at premises operated by Mr. Kanzaria at other premises. These included trade mark offences in June 2009 at 101-103 Brabazon Street, E14, an under-age sale at another premises in Newham in 2011, and most recently an under-age sale at the Brabazon Street premises in December 2022, which is still being investigated.
Mr. Brander accepted that there could be additional conditions imposed on the licence. However, in all the circumstances he had no confidence in the management to comply with any licence conditions in the future and he asked that the Sub-Committee revoke the licence.
Licensing Authority
Corinne Holland addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority. She stressed that there had been no age-verification policy in place and that the CCTV had not worked for at least two months. Both Mr. Kanzaria and Ms. Sookun had admitted that the refusal book was not being used. Ms. Holland also expressed her concern at the fact that the person selling alcohol had never been identified, was apparently not known to the management, and yet had called Mr. Kanzaria. She suggested that he must have known who he was. Ms. Holland expressed concern that Ms. Sookun did not have sufficient knowledge or experience of licensing and that the transfer would make no difference. She queried the wording of some of the proposed conditions that had been circulated just before the hearing, and whether they were appropriate or enforceable. The Home Office did not appear. Their representation was concerned with illegal working. A visit had been conducted on 6th March 2020 at the Premises. One of those working there had been found to be working in breach of their employment conditions. A Civil Penalty Referral notice was issued to the business.
Premises Licence Holder
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Craig on behalf of the premises licence holder. He briefly addressed the proposed conditions and confirmed that one (condition 13) would need amending to delete the last few words, which were not appropriate to these premises. He disagreed with Ms. Holland as to the enforceability of others.
Mr. Craig told the Sub-Committee that Mr. Kanzaria had been unwell for some time and had now stepped back from operating the Premises. The sale had taken place a year ago. Steps have been taken to address the issues and Ms. Sookun was aware of what Challenge 25 was, the requirement to operate a refusal book, and the need for CCTV.
Mr. Craig explained that when the sale took place, the toilets were not functioning. The employed member of staff had left to go to the toilet outside and had allowed a customer to look after the shop. It was suggested that insufficient steps had been taken to identify this person. He maintained that this person was not known to the management.
The company operated by Mr. Kanzaria (Dennis Bow Ltd.) and Mr. Kanzaria plead guilty to all the offences charged. Ms. Sookun, however, pleaded guilty only to the failure to display the statutory tobacco notice and no evidence was offered on the other charges. She had no criminal liability for the other offences and had now taken on the responsibility of holding the premises licence. Mr. Craig asserted that Ms. Sookun should not be held responsible for the issues relating to her father’s management of the Premises.
Mr. Craig suggested that rather than revoking the licence, the Sub-Committee should consider imposing additional conditions, removing Ms. Sookun as the DPS, and imposing a period of suspension commensurate with the offending to mark the breach and act as a deterrent.
This application engages the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm. The Sub-Committee takes under-age sales very seriously, as paragraphs 2.23 and 11.27 of the Statutory Guidance make clear. The Sub-Committee was particularly concerned that the under-age sale revealed other issues, which were that the CCTV had not been working for at least two months, and that the refusals book appeared to have never been used. Whilst the Sub-Committee accepted that there was only the evidence of one sale, the fact remained that without these measures in place it was impossible to be sure that this was an isolated incident. Indeed, Mr. Brander’s review application suggested that it was not.
Whilst it was said that Mr. Kanzaria’s management of the Premises had deteriorated, the Sub-Committee noted other issues arising at both this shop and another one, both of which involved under-age sales, one as recently as December 2022. The Sub-Committee accepted that Ms. Sookun may not have anything to do with that other shop; however, these shops were operated as a family business and the Sub-Committee noted that the transfer of the licence did not take place at a much earlier time but just before the review hearing. The responsible authorities had concerns over the management’s ability to operate in accordance with the law and this did not give the Sub-Committee confidence that matters would now be addressed.
The Sub-Committee noted that Ms. Sookun had been the DPS since April 2019. This pre-dated the Home Office enforcement visit in 2020. The prevention of illegal working is stressed throughout the Statutory Guidance. Whilst she may not have been directly involved in the employment of that person, given the expectation that the DPS will have day-to-day responsibility for a premises, it undermines any confidence that the Sub-Committee can place in her. The Sub-Committee noted that admissions made at her interview, which included not knowing what Challenge 21 was or that it was a condition of the premises licence, not knowing whether staff did or did not hold personal licences, and not having any written processes to deal with under-age sales.
The Sub-Committee noted the assertion made that the seller was unconnected with the Premises. Members were not convinced that the seller was not known to the Premises. The seller called Mr. Kanzaria on the telephone immediately. It did not strike the Sub-Committee as being at all likely that the seller was unknown in those circumstances.
The Sub-Committee noted that Ms. Sookun now understood the importance of the conditions and what was required of her. However, at the relevant time she was the DPS and thus held a personal licence. She ought to have known what was required of her in that role and the meaning of things such as Challenge 25 and the importance of compliance with the licence conditions. It was clear to the Sub-Committee that her day-to-day oversight was lacking and had been for a prolonged period of time; this was not a one-off incident.
The Sub-Committee has carefully considered the options open to it. It accepts that its role is not to determine guilt or innocence but to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives. It does not consider that taking no action is appropriate here and it was not suggested by any party that this was the case. Removing a licensable activity would be tantamount to revocation given that the licence only authorises the sale of alcohol. Mr. Craig had suggested that the Sub-Committee should impose new conditions on the licence and combine that with the removal of Ms. Sookun as the DPS and to impose a period of suspension. However, the Sub-Committee needed to be satisfied that this would suffice to promote the licensing objectives.
Decision
The Sub-Committee had particular regard to the Statutory Guidance. Paragraph 11.21 notes that poor management may be a “direct reflection of poor company practice or policy and the mere removal of the designated premises supervisor may be an inadequate response to the problems presented.” This seemed to the Sub-Committee to be the case here.
Paragraph 11.23 of the Statutory Guidance states that “[I]t will always be important that any detrimental financial impact that may result from a licensing authority’s decision is appropriate and proportionate to the promotion of the licensing objectives and for the prevention of illegal working in licensed premises. But where premises are found to be trading irresponsibly, the licensing authority should not hesitate, where appropriate to do so, to take tough action to tackle the problems at the premises and, where other measures are deemed insufficient, to revoke the licence.”
Similarly, paragraphs 11.26 to 11.28 remind licensing authorities of the importance of taking tough action in certain cases. At paragraph 11.26 the Statutory Guidance states that “It is important to recognise that certain criminal activity or associated problems may be taking place or have taken place despite the best efforts of the licence holder and the staff working at the premises and despite full compliance with the conditions attached to the licence. In such circumstances, the licensing authority is still empowered to take any appropriate steps to remedy the problems. The licensing authority’s duty is 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.”
This is not a case where the problems have arisen despite full compliance with conditions and with the best efforts of staff and the licence holder (or the DPS). These problems have arisen because of their failings. Paragraph 11.27 indicates that certain activity associated with licensed premises needs to be treated particularly seriously. These include where the premises are being used for the sale of alcohol to minors, for the employment of people who have no right to work in the UK, and the storage or sale or smuggled tobacco or alcohol. The Sub-Committee considered that the prior finding of counterfeit alcohol, albeit in another shop run by Mr. Kanzaria, was equally serious and that it was appropriate to have regard to those other matters as they affected the confidence the Sub-Committee could have in the management as a whole.
The Sub-Committee accepted that Ms. Sookun may not have been involved with the Premises before April 2019. However, this and the other shops appeared to be a family-run business and the Sub-Committee had concerns as to how much of a clean sweep this would in fact be and that this would not suffice to promote the licensing objectives. There was a history of problems over a long period of time, and the Premises’ management had had ample opportunity to improve things. That had not happened, and the Sub-Committee had no confidence that things would now change. The Sub-Committee is therefore satisfied that the only appropriate and proportionate step to take is the revocation of the premises licence.
Supporting documents: