At the request of the Chair, Mr Nick Kemp, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the review application for Mile End Food & Wine, 93 Burdett Road, London E3 4JN. It was noted that the review had been triggered by the Metropolitan Police.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Andy Jackson, Metropolitan Police explained that the review related to a series of operations run jointly between the Police, Trading Standards and Customs & Excises. It was noted that Mile End Food & Wine was visited on 21^st April 2010 and on entry to the premise, a total of 38.5 litres (55 bottles) of counterfeit mixed spirits and 136 bottles of non duty paid mixed wine were found on the premises these were then seized. There had been no receipts produced for the goods at the time of seizure and when the Premises Licence Holder was questioned about where he had brought the goods from, he confirmed that he had brought the goods from a door to door salesman who came to the shop in a white van.

It was noted that the goods seized amounted to a total duty evaded of £826.32. Mr Jackson referred Members to the DCMS guidance which stated that the sale of smuggled tobacco and alcohol should be treated particularly seriously. He urged members to revoke the license in this instance in order to send a powerful message to the premises and to all other off licenses in the area.

Mr Ian Moseley, Trading Standards, explained that having examined records held by Trading Standards Services, that there were three allegations received between 09/01/2008 to 27/05/2009 that underage sales of alcohol was taking place from the premises however five test purchase attempts had been correctly refused from 2008 to date. He explained that counterfeit and non duty paid alcohol not only represented a loss to the national revenue from the failure to pay duty, that it also introduced a health risk as the goods may have been defective or contain contaminates. He then detailed some conditions to restrict the purchase of alcohol if Members were not minded to revoke the license.  

Mr Ibrahim Aytec, legal representative for the Premises License Holder urged Members not to grant revocation of the licence. He explained that there had never been any complaints or problems since the shop was opened in 2007 and had five test purchases which were correctly refused. Mr Aytec stated that the Premises Licence Holder acknowledged his mistake for purchasing the goods and welcomed the conditions suggested by Trading Standards. Mr Aytec concluded by highlighting the financial effects the business would have if revocation was granted. 

In response to questions it was noted that all the alcohol was bought in one purchase, the Premises Licence Holder did have a receipt for the goods, however can no longer find it. In response to further questions, the Premises License Holder explained that since the review application he had changed his purchasing methods and was now only buying stock from wholesalers and not purchasing on the premises. It was also confirmed that it was the Premises Licence Holder who had purchased the alcohol.

The Chair advised that the Sub Committee would at 7.00pm adjourn to consider the evidence presented. Members reconvened at 7.10pm. The Chair reported;

After hearing representations from both parties, Members reached the decision to GRANT the application and grant the revocation of the licence for sale of alcohol. Members noted the guidance that they were referred to by Metropolitan Police in particular the guidance issued by the Department for Culture Media and Sport under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Members acknowledged that five test purchases attempts had been correctly refused.  They noted, however that a large amount of counterfeit and smuggled alcohol had been found within the premises and were very concerned about the associated health risks with counterfeit alcohol being made available for purchase at the premises.

Although the licensee did admit to purchasing the goods, he was unable to provide receipts or any proper justification for not being able to provide such receipts. It was noted that it was a large amount of alcohol which were non duty paid, thus affecting the overall revenue of the country.

Members felt that they heard no specific reassurances from the Licensee to satisfy them that appropriate steps would be taken and followed and that they could not be satisfied that the Licensee would promote the licensing objectives of crime and disorder. Therefore Members felt that there was no other option but to revoke the sale of alcohol license. 

RESOLVED

That the review application for the premises license for Mile End Food & Wine, 93 Burdett Road, London E3 4JN be GRANTED with the revocation of the license for the sale of alcohol.