Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Officer (Elections and Regulatory) advising Members that West Yorkshire Police has served on the licensing authority an application under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 for a review of a premises licence in respect of, 39 Compton Road, Burmantofts, Leeds, LS9 7BJ.

 

The report of the Chief Officer (Elections and Regulatory) informed the Sub-Committee that West Yorkshire Police has served on the Licensing Authority an application under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 for a review of a premises licence in respect of 39 Compton Road, Burmantofts, Leeds, LS9 7BJ.

 

The grounds for review related to the seizure of illicit tobacco and non-duty paid alcohol and the sale of alcohol to underage persons.

 

The following were in attendance for this item:

·  PC Andy Clifford, West Yorkshire Police (WYP)

·  Jason Bethell, West Yorkshire Trading Standards (WYTS)

·  Carmel Brennand, LCC Entertainment Licensing

·  Emilia Slezak, LCC Public Health

·  Councillor Salma Arif, Elected Ward Member for Gipton & Harehills

·  Councillor Asghar Ali, Elected Ward Member for Gipton & Harehills

·  Chris Rees-Gay, Woods Whur – Licence Holder’s Representative

·  Nicola Raper, LCC Entertainment Licensing - Observer

·  Victoria Radford, LCC Entertainment Licensing – Observer

 

The licence holder’s legal representative put forward an application to the Sub-Committee for the application to be deferred until a later date, suggested as the 23^rd of January 2023. He explained that he was only made aware of the hearing on the 2^nd of January 2024 and had not been given sufficient time to read all of the relevant information or to provide a detailed case. He also stated that the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) asserted that he had not received notice of the hearing. The legal representative summarised by explaining they needed more time to prepare for the hearing. In considering this request, WYP, Leeds City Council’s Entertainment Licensing and Public Health believed an ample amount of time had been given for all documentation to be considered and raised concerns regarding the safety of children and the public in deferring the hearing.

 

The Licensing Officer confirmed the review application was served on the licence holder on the 10^th of November 2023, a site notice advertising the review application was in situ at the premises on the 13^th of November 2023 and letters advising the licence holder were hand delivered directly to the premises and posted to the licence holder’s residential address on the same day, notice of the hearing had been sent to the licence holder on the 14^th of December 2023 via email to a previously verified email address and the legal representative had been instructed on the 21^st of December 2023.  The Licensing Officer agreed that a notice of the hearing had not been contained in those documents sent to the representative.

 

Deliberations took place for Sub-Committee Members to consider the application.

 

Upon returning to the room, Sub-Committee Members resolved to refuse the application to defer the hearing. They concluded that adequate time has been provided for the licence holder to instruct a solicitor. To accept the deferral would have incurred significant time and resources for the Sub-Committee and the parties making representations who had attended today. When taken together with the seriousness of the alleged conduct and risk to the licensing objectives it was not considered to be in the public interest to adjourn the hearing. They felt that it was necessary and in-line with the licensing objectives to proceed with the hearing in the PLH’s absence. Therefore, it was RESOLVED – That the meeting proceed on that basis.

 

The Legal Adviser outlined the procedure for the hearing.

 

The Licensing Officer provided an overview of the application, outlining the following information:

·  The review application had been submitted by WYP on the grounds of the prevention of crime & disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm, with a number of illicit goods seizures and failed test purchases conducted at the premises.

·  Alcohol had been sold to underage (aged 14 and 15 years old) Police Cadets on the 13^th of September 2023 during a failed test purchase at the premises.

·  Appendix A contained a copy of the review application, outlining the grounds and relevant information for the review.

·  Appendix B contained a copy of the premises licence which was summarised as sale by retail of alcohol everyday from 09:00 to 21:00. Point 2 of the report provided the background history of the licence.

·  Representations in support of the review had been received from Entertainment Licensing, Public Health and Elected Ward Members, with copies available at appendix D.

·  Section 182 guidance specific to the review process was available at appendix E and the options available to Members were detailed at point 12 of the report.

 

The applicant and supporting parties outlined the following information:

WYP

·  The issues regarding crime and public nuisance were well documented in Harehills and the CIA was in place to address the concentration of off licence within the area.

·  A number of premises within the CIA had bad operation models and links to organised crime which were exacerbating social issues.

·  The premise had made a concerted effort to conduct crimes, with the stocking of illicit and non-duty paid alcohol and cigarettes.

·  During a WYP search at the premises, a sniffer dog had uncovered a secret trap door behind a false wall which had contained illegal cigarettes. The key, an electromagnetic fob, to the trap door was only produced by a staff member upon WYP attempting to force it open.

·  Non-duty paid alcohol and cigarettes decreased the prices of potentially harmful products, reducing the financial incentive against usage and negatively impacting a deprived area with a high number of alcohol dependant persons.

·  Reports of residents and local businesses feeling intimidated by street drinkers had been received and with the sale of cheap, non-duty paid alcohol, the premises were directly contributing to the issue and had become a magnet for street drinkers.

·  The instances of crime displayed disregard to uphold the licencing objectives and the placement of profit and greed above social responsibility.

·  The failed test purchase conducted by the Police Cadets was noted to be very concerning, and blatantly irresponsible and illegal as the Cadets looked and dressed young and were obviously underage.

·  Harehills needed good operators, in line with the law and licencing objectives, which were clearly not being followed at this premises.

WYTS

·  Failed test purchases of illicit cigarettes had occurred as far back as 2017, with the price for a 20 pack sold at £3.50, the average price for a legal 20 pack was approximately £14.50 with around £8 being duty cost.

·  The operations over Summer 2023 displayed no improvements in operations and the electromagnetic trap door was a sophisticated concealment method and malicious in intent, requiring specific knowledge and hidden wiring.

·  Illegal vapes, above the legal nicotine content per milligram, were also seized from the premises.

·  The licence holder had been advised on the criminality of the sale of illicit goods, yet one month later, another illicit cigarette test purchase was failed, displaying disregard for compliance.

·  The premises had been illegally bypassing electricity, with the National Gird called out to switch it off.

·  The seized cigarettes had been sent for analysis and confirmed as counterfeit, and not imperial tobacco. Around a half to a third of the seized cigarettes had been smuggled counterfeits, mostly of Eastern European origin. The health warnings were not in English, the packaging was incorrect, and no duty had been paid on them.

Entertainment Licensing

·  With 18 years’ experience, in liaison and enforcement, mostly within Harehills, the issues of the area and the history of non-compliance were known well.

·  Contact with the premises had begun in May 2015, with the licence holder, Mr. Saman Ali Faiak, appointed in November 2015.

·  During multiple visits to the premises in 2015, alongside WYP, it was noted that the CCTV was non-compliant, only saving recordings for 24 hours and not the 31 days as required. It was outlined to the licence holder that all sales during this period, when the CCTV was non-operational, were illegal under section 136 of the Licencing Act 2003.

·  In March 2016 Mr. Faiak was appointed as DPS of the premises, which required passing the relevant exam to obtain a person licence. It was thought at this point the licence holder would have understood their responsibilities.

·  During a multi-agency operation on the 16^th of June 2023, Part B of the licence was improperly displayed on the outside of the premises and upon request the licence holder was unable to produce Part A of the licence. This was a legislative requirement.

·  From December 2021 to June 2022, the East Leeds Neighbourhood Policing Team had conducted a section 141 Closure Order to address anti-social behaviour in the area. The premises had received an email noting the investigations taking place and the specific issues stemming from the shop.

·  The premises was on a parade of eleven shops, being one of two off licences and had become a magnet for congregating street drinkers. On a recent visit to the parade twelve street drinkers were witnessed, with complaints of intimidation also received from local residents at this location. The two licensed premises were located at the far left and right end of the parade, and both had placed blame on each other for attracting anti-social behaviour.

·  The sale of alcohol to the underage Police Cadets was seriously concerning, breaching condition 9 on the licence to request proof of age ID for customers believed to be under 25, in opposition to the licencing objective regarding the protection of children from harm and was a dereliction of duty.

·  Illicit cigarettes test purchases had failed at the premises in 2017, 2018 and 2023, displaying disregard for the law and had led to multiple seizures by HMRC.

·  Point 11.27 of section 182 guidance notes that criminal activity at a licenced premises should be taken seriously and given the sale of smuggled tobacco and alcohol, revoking the licence was noted to be appropriate.

·  The 16^th of June 2023 operations were a snapshot of the overall criminal activity occurring at the premises, with Mr. Fiaik operating the shop for over eight years yet continued to breach licence conditions and commit crimes.

·  The sale to minors and the stocking of illicit, smuggled goods were noted to be serious crimes which impact the area negatively. The representations from Elected Ward Members displayed deep concern held by the community.

·  The end of year statement from Woods Whur, the appointed legal representative’s company, was read out, which stated ‘Enforcement proceedings in Leeds for example are significantly higher than we have seen for years with a large operation attacking off-licences in the Harehills area of Leeds’. It was noted the graduated response was proportionate to the number of poorly operated, often illegal, premises in Harehills.

·  The number of reviews were taking place to protect community interests and not to attack properly operating premises. In this case there were clear issues and illegalities that needed to be addressed and it was suggested the licence should be revoked.

Public Health

·  Middle Super Output Area (MSOA) data outlined that Harehills had a high number of people under the age of sixteen and looked after children, who may be vulnerable to harm. Given the high number of off licences, the Sub-Committee was encouraged to address the licencing objective of protecting children from harm.

·  There were thirteen childcare providers within a one mile radius of the premises, and given the prevalence of street drinkers, young people were being exposed to addiction and heaving drinking was normalised.

·  A resident had raised concerns that children in the area were growing up around crime and litter and this business contributed to these issues.

·  Partnership work to address addiction and street drinking was ongoing with events run from a café nearby the premises.

·  Residents should feel safe and not witness the scale of anti-social behaviour in the area.

·  A local GP had noted there were many vulnerable people within the CIA area and licensed premises had a social responsibility to address risks to addiction and harm. Some families had moved out the area due to the prevalence of crime and disorder which had potential health implications if required to change GP surgeries and join long waiting lists.

·  The cheap, illicit products on sale at the premises increased accessibility of harmful goods. The operations were dangerous, regulations were in place for a reason and the premises displayed a lack of respect for the community.

·  The sale of alcohol to underage people showed a direct disregard for protecting children from harm.

Elected Ward Members

  Councillor Salma Arif

·  The premises was nearby Compton Library, a children’s centre, the Co-op Academy and Harehills Primary School and the anti-social behaviour stemming from the premises affected people’s ability to access local services and amenities.

·  A month prior to the hearing, Harehills Labour Club had sold of the plot of land it was situated on in order to acquire funds of approximately £25,000 for a perimeter security fence to restrict access to the outdoor area which had been abused by street drinkers.

·  There was a high prevalence of street drinkers on Compton Road, with a local dentistry notifying residents they were moving to a new location in response to persistent anti-social behaviour. This decreased health service provision for the area.

·  Exposure to street drinking and anti-social behaviour impacted young people negatively, with heavy drinking and crime normalised and families feeling intimidated.

·  With the premises selling illegal products and concealing them, bypassing electricity and selling alcohol to children, it was clearly a rouge player and a strong signal needed to be sent to bad operators.

·  Support for the community was needed and the direct disregard for the licensing objectives, instances of crime and associated social issues needed to stop.

Councillor Asghar Ali

·  Over the eight years the licence holder had operated the premises, there had been multiple incidents and subsequent opportunities to improve operations, yet the business practises had become worse.

·  Upon election as a Councillor, the primary issues for the area were clear and the prevalence of street drinking, drug abuse and anti-social behaviour was a constant terror for residents.

·  The multiagency operations had uncovered clear criminal activity and challenged the licence holder who had failed the community, with children and vulnerable people targeted and misled.

·  Operations such as this case, ruined the area for legitimate businesses, with prices undercut through illicit goods, a lack of social responsibility and not capitalising on the ample opportunities to improve.

·  There was hard evidence of wrongdoing and Members were requested to send a clear message to bad operators by revoking the licence.

 

The license holder’s legal representative informed the Sub-Committee that, given their application to adjourn the hearing on the grounds of insufficient time to prepare, he was not in a position to provide a case on behalf of his client and did not address the Sub-Committee in objection to the review. The representative requested that his submission that his client had been prejudiced by the hearing proceeding in absence should be recorded.

 

In response to questions from Sub-Committee Members, the following information was outlined:

·  Further investigation into the allegations of crime were noted to be pursued by the HMRC Civil Team for outstanding duty and VAT payments.

·  Mr. Faiak had been a manager at the premises since November 2015 and became the licence holder and DPS in 2016 after completing a personal licence course and there had been many years to address the criminal allegations and bad practise at the premises.

·  Prior to the Covid-19 Pandemic, WYP had conducted partnership tasking meetings to address issues of street drinking and premises across Harehills had been visited regularly. During the visits it was noted that this premises had been unable to provide any CCTV footage.

·  For a potential prosecution, the Licensing Authority required three offences within a twelve month period. For issues noted on an initial visit an inspection sheet was filled out to clearly outline requirements for compliance with a licence agreement and laws. The monitoring and prosecution process was intensive in time and resources to gain evidence for sanctions.

·  The email address used to contact the licence holder was unable to be confirmed as correct by the legal representative.

·  Members suggested the approval of the adjournment application had been taken for granted given the weight of the accusations made by the parties in support of the review and the public interest in the case. In response, the legal representative outlined it was in the public interest for sufficient time to be allocated for the licence holder and himself to create a defence case.

 

In summarising, PC Clifford outlined no defence case had been made as the allegations were based on clear evidence and were indefensible. The premises had preyed on vulnerable people with the deliberate sale of illegal goods. Street drinkers were attracted to the premises and local area by the low cost of the illicit cigarettes and non-duty paid alcohol. There had been clear, deliberate attempts to break the law and cover up crimes. The work of WYP and partners was time and resource intensive just to get premises to comply with simple laws and regulations and poorly operated licensed shops were a plague on Harehills.

 

The licence holder’s legal representative did not provide a summarising statement of their case but reiterated the application to adjourn had been made due to insufficient time to prepare and a late notice of hearing.

 

At this point in the meeting, the Sub-Committee went into private session to deliberate on the application. Upon returning, it was outlined there had been a blatant disregard for laws and licence conditions, repeated non-compliance, deliberate concealment of illicit goods and there was no lesser measure than to revoke the licence to address the issues.

 

RESOLVED – To revoke the licence.