Agenda item

Re-admission of the Press and Public: Announcement of the decision of the Sub-Committee

Minutes:

This was an application for a review of the premises licence for Euro Express, 23 Queens Parade, 22 Friern Barnet Road, Barnet N11 3DA (herein after referred to as the “Premises”).  The Premises is licensed for the sale of alcohol off the Premises only.

 

The review of the premises licence, under s.51 of the Licensing Act 2003, is made by the Metropolitan Police in an application dated 22nd August 2018.  The application is supported by Trading Standards.  Both responsible authorities say that the Premises is failing to promote the licensing objective of the prevention of Crime and Disorder.  Mr Kurtel attended the Hearing with his legal representative Mr Sutherland and Mr Halil assisted with interpretation, where necessary.

 

We have heard representations from the Metropolitan Police that following a search of the premises on 16th August 2018, a number of items were found on the Premises whereby the duty could not be accounted for.  The following items were seized:

 

(1)  36 Packets of 20 pack Marlborough Gold Original (non-duty paid)

(2)  6.95kg shisha (non-duty paid)

(3)  160g Rolling Tobacco (non-duty paid)

(4)  Two bottles of 70cl High Commissioner Whisky (Counterfeit Duty label)

 

In addition to the above, three 1L bottles of Smirnoff Vodka were found behind the till with original security caps on them in a Sainsbury’s bag for life. A member of staff admitted to buying these bottles for £30 from someone who walked into the shop selling them.  The individual was arrested and received an adult police caution for handling stolen goods.  Mr Sutherland, representing Mr Kurtul, advised the Sub-Committee at the outset of the Hearing that this individual had been dismissed and no longer worked at the Premises.  However, Mr Kurtel later informed the Sub-Committee that this same individual had only been dismissed recently.  He also advised that this same individual would regularly take money from the till to purchase cigarettes, petrol and replace the money with an “I owe you”.

 

Mr Kurtul is the Premises Licence holder and the sole designated premises supervisor for the licensed Premises.  Mr Kurtel admitted to purchasing the above seized items for around £300 about two weeks prior to the inspection.  He advised that the goods were purchased with the reluctant consent of the business owner, Mr Cebrail Imrek.  He advised that the reason the goods were purchased was because business had become very slow and difficult.  He explained that this was no excuse but that this was the only time that non-duty UK goods had been purchased and sold from the Premises and it would not happen again.  Mr Kurtul could not advise the Sub-Committee on the quantity of non-duty paid cigarettes he had sold, but that he did not actively advertise the goods to his customers.  It was only if customers enquired about any special offers that he may have told them about the cigarettes. Mr Kurtul advised that it was only non-duty paid goods and not stolen goods that he sold on and the cigarettes were sold at less than half the normal price.  When questioned about who sold him the non-duty paid goods, he advised that it was a gentleman who came into the shop. 

 

Mr Sutherland addressed the Sub-Committee on the intel presented in the Metropolitan Police Review Application and compared it to nothing less than gossip and requested that they give little or no weight to it given that it had not been graded by the Metropolitan Police.   The Sub-Committee accepted this submission save for the intel received from a Safer Neighbourhood Ward Officer who witnessed a female well known for theft offences exiting the Premises. This could not be classed as gossip.  Notwithstanding, the Sub-Committee accept that this individual may have been exiting the Premises having purchased items legitimately.  The intel evidence submitted in support of the application was unsubstantiated and the Sub-Committee gave little weight to it.

 

It was confirmed during the Hearing that the premises licence was transferred to Mr Kurtel on 30th July 2015 and he became the DPS on the 3rd November 2015.  It also transpired that Mr Cebrail Imrek continues to be the business owner and is Mr Kurtel’s wife’s cousin. 

 

The Review Application refers to a test purchase that took place on 30th October 2015, when Mr Kurtul was the premises licence holder and Mr Cebrail Imrek was the seller of four bottles of Carlsberg beer to underage Police Cadets.  This was seriously considered by the Sub-Committee. The Metropolitan Police Licensing Officer carried out a number of visits in June 2017 to ensure that the Premises was operating in accordance with the premises licence.  The issues to be rectified were the storage of CCTV for 31 days and to correctly display the premises licence. No other issues were reported.

 

The evidence before the Sub-Committee was also that two bottles of 70cl High Commissioner Whisky seized during the inspection had counterfeit duty labels.  Jack Dowler of trading standards highlighted the seriousness of counterfeit alcohol and the health implications on those who consume counterfeit alcohol.

 

Mr Sutherland made submissions in respect of the very stringent conditions to be added to the premises licence and also proposed the suspension of the licence for between 6 to 12 weeks.  Both the Metropolitan Police and Trading Standards had no confidence that the proposed conditions would encourage Mr Kurtul to promote the licensing objectives.  Mr Dowler, unfortunately, incorrectly submitted that Mr Kurtul was by already legally required to adhere to the first three proposed conditions.  Mr Sutherland disputed this and advised that the proposed conditions were in addition to those currently on the premises licence.  The Sub-Committee accepted Mr Sutherland’s submission.

 

Paragraph 11.27 of the guidance to the Licensing Act 2003 sets out various matters that are to be treated as being particularly serious and these include the sale of smuggled tobacco and alcohol. If it is determined that the crime prevention objective is being undermined, we are expected to consider seriously the revocation of the licence even in the first instance.   Our role is to determine what steps should be taken in connection with the premises licence, namely the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety objectives in the interests of the wider community.

 

The Sub-Committee had grave concerns regarding the running and management of the Premises and in particular the “I owe you” system that Mr Kurtel currently operates.  Mr Kurtel has failed to promote the licensing objectives and comply with its obligations under the Licensing Act 2003 and was in breach of its licence conditions.  The Sub-Committee takes the sale of non-duty paid goods, the handling of stolen goods and the sale of counterfeit goods very seriously and does not condone such acts.  As explained by PC Wilcock, handling stolen goods from large retailers and not paying duty on UK goods may, on the face of it, appear to be victimless crimes.  However, such acts have a hugely negative impact on vulnerable members of society and are much more damaging that one realises. Mr Kurtel and Mr Imrek should be mindful of this going forward. 

 

After hearing and considering all the evidence and the representations made by the parties today, the Sub-Committee gave serious consideration to revoking the licence and were mindful of the objections raised by the Metropolitan Police and Trading Standards.  Nevertheless, the Sub-Committee appreciated Mr Kurtul’s efforts to answer its questions throughout the Hearing. At the end of the Hearing, Mr Sutherland, offered a list of additional conditions which he felt were proportionate to enable Mr Kurtel to strictly adhere to his obligations to uphold the licensing objectives.

 

The Sub-Committee must consider whether Mr Kurtul is able or indeed willing to comply with the legal requirements of holding a licence and what action is appropriate to promote the licensing objectives in view of the recent problems at the Premises.  What we have to consider however is not punishment, but how to promote the licensing objectives.

 

The Sub-Committee believes that a three month suspension of the licence, together with the removal of Mr Kurtul as the DPS, and the proposed conditions are sufficient for the promotion of the licensing objectives going forward.  Mr Kurtul and indeed Mr Imrek should be mindful that if a review of a similar nature comes before a licensing Sub-Committee in the future, it is extremely unlikely to be as sympathetic. The Sub-Committee has therefore resolved the following:

 

  1. The premises licence to be suspended for 3 months.
  2. Mr Kurtel to be removed as the DPS with immediate effect and for the Metropolitan Police and Licensing Authority to approve the appointment of the new DPS.
  3. The following conditions to be added to the premises licence:
    1. Alcohol and cigarette stock shall only be purchased from registered wholesalers and shall not be purchased from door to door sellers.
    2. Only the Premises licence holder or Designated Premises Supervisor shall purchase alcohol and cigarette stock.
    3. The premises licence holder will ensure that legible copies of the receipts for all alcohol and tobacco goods purchased will be retained on the premises for at least 12 months and made immediately available on request to the police or an authorise officer from the local authority.  Receipts shall show the following details:

                                          i.    Seller’s name and address

                                        ii.    Sellers company details, if applicable

                                       iii.    Seller’s VAT details, if applicable

                                       iv.    AWRS registration number.

  1. An ultra-violet light shall be available at the premises for the purposes of checking the UK Duty Stamp on spirit stock.
  2. The premises licence holder shall report to Trading Standards the supplier of any spirits that have UK Duty Stamps that do not fluoresce under ultraviolet light.
  3. All tobacco products which are not on the tobacco displace shall be stored in a container clearly marked ‘tobacco stock’.  This container shall be kept within the store room or behind the sales counter.
  4. Tobacco products shall only be taken from the tobacco display behind the sales counter in order to make a sale.
  5. The premises licence holder shall report to Trading Standards any person attending the store to sell or supply alcohol or tobacco.  The report shall include where applicable:

                                          i.    A description of the person

                                        ii.    Name of the person if provided

                                       iii.    Registration number of any vehicle

                                       iv.    Description of items offered.

 

 

Right of Appeal

 

Any party aggrieved with the decision of the licensing Sub-Committee on one or more of the grounds set out in schedule 5 of the Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the magistrates’ court within 21 days of notification of this decision.