Agenda item

The report of the Chief Officer Elections and Regulatory requests Members consideration on an application made by West Yorkshire Police under section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003, for the summary review of the premises licence in respect of Gusto Market, 12 – 14 Strathmore Drive, Harehills, Leeds, LS9 6AB.

The report of the Chief Officer Elections and Regulatory informed the Members of the Licensing Sub Committee of an application for a licence summary review made by the West Yorkshire Police in respect of Gusto Market, 12–14, Strathmore Drive, Harehills, Leeds, LS9 6AB. The application was made on the grounds of serious crime.

 

In attendance for the hearing were:

·  PC Neil Haywood, West Yorkshire Police – Review Applicant

·  Victoria Radford, Entertainment Licensing – Representation in support of the application

·  Emilia Slezak, Public Health – Representation in support of the application

·  Nabaz Ibrahim Karim – Resigned Director of Gusto Market Mini Ltd. and the current Designated Premises Supervisor

 

The Legal Officer advised Members that Mr Karim had resigned as Director of Gusto Market Mini Ltd on 28^th May 2024, after the interim steps hearing. It was confirmed via a search on Companies House that the Director of Gusto Market Mini Ltd was a Mr Akan Omed Mangori as of 28^th May 2024. Mr Karim said that he was no longer linked to Gusto Market Mini Ltd.

 

Members were advised that given the informed from Mr Karim and the information on the Companies House webpage, Mr Karim was no longer considered as an interested party as he was longer involved in the company that holds the licence. Therefore, he had no right to speak at the hearing. Members, however, were of the view that as he had turned up for the hearing, he should be given the chance to speak, so that they had the full picture and could ascertain why he was at the hearing. No other party at the hearing objected to Mr Karim addressing the Licensing Sub-Committee.

 

The Legal Officer outlined the procedure for the hearing. At this point West Yorkshire Police informed the Sub-Committee that they wished to table some supplementary information. All parties were agreeable to the information being tabled and the hearing adjourned for five minutes, so all parties could read the information.

 

The Licensing Officer presented the application and provided the following information:

·  A history of the premises had been provided at Paragraph 2 of the submitted report along with a copy of the premises licence which was appended to the report at Appendix A.

·  The application for a summary review of the premises licence had been sought by West Yorkshire Police and a redacted version of the application was attached at Appendix B. Members noted that in accompaniment of the application a certificate made under section 53(1B) of the Act, confirmed that a Senior Member of West Yorkshire Police was satisfied that these premises are associated with serious crime or serious disorder or both. A redacted version of the certificate was appended to the report at Appendix C.

·  Officers confirmed that the application and certificate were served by email on the Responsible Authorities on the 22 May 2024. The application and certificate were served on the licence holder by email on the 23 May 2024 and a hard copy was delivered by hand directly to a member of staff at the premises on the same day. The Licensing Authority confirmed that the statutory requirements to advertise the review application had been followed.

·  At the Interim Steps meeting it was decided that suspension of the licence with immediate effect pending the substantive hearing of the review was the most appropriate course of action for the Sub Committee to take. A copy of the Interim Steps Decision Notice was attached to the report at Appendix D.

·  A map identifying the location of the premises was attached to the report at Appendix E.

·  Members noted that the application had attracted two representations in support of the application, one from a Senior Liaison and Enforcement Officer on behalf of Entertainment Licensing, and a copy of the representation was appended to the report at Appendix F. The second representation was from Leeds City Council’s Public Health Team and Members’ attention was drawn to a copy attached to the report at Appendix G.

·  Guidance specific to Summary Reviews taken from Section 182 of the Act was available to assist Members’ decision making at Appendix H of the submitted report.

 

PC Hayward addressed the Sub-Committee and provided the following information:

·  Evidence had been provided in the form of witness statements and photographs that the licensing objectives in relation to crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm had been undermined.

·  It was recognised that Harehills had issues with organised crime in the area, and there were patterns of behaviour, and this was not the first time that these premises had been the subject of a review. There had been previous issues when the premises had been called Baba Jaga 2 in relation to:

o  Failed test purchases.

o  Sale of cigarettes where duty had not been paid.

o  Illicit vapes, cigarettes and alcohol found in the store.

·  It was noted that the illicit goods are often stored outside the premises sometimes in a van, making the goods difficult to find.

·  Members were informed that Mr Karim, Director of Gusto Market Mini Ltd. at the time the applications were made, had incorporated the company, transferred the licence, and became the DPS whilst the premises was called Baba Jaga 2 and had been subject to a review. The Police had advised against the licence being transferred to Mr Karim as they had been of the view at that time that even with the change of ownership, name, and Mr Karim as DPS the issues would continue. However, without being presented substantial evidence establishing a link between the existing and proposed licensees, the Licensing Sub-Committee had resolved to allow the transfer of the Premises Licence to Mr Karim and for Mr Karim to be specified as DPS.

·  Members noted that the landlord of the premises is currently serving a prison sentence for smuggling.

·  On the 18^th April 2024 a multi-agency operation was undertaken where it was found that there was a menu for vapes and a walkie–talkie. The Police were able to see that there were large amounts of alcohol and vapes more than could be used for personal use. The Police had used the walkie -talkie in the shop to advise the occupants to come downstairs to the shop. At this point of the operation 2 males were seen jumping from the flat’s window. On gaining access to the flat a large amount of illicit vapes, and illicit cigarettes were found, and a large quantity of money was found on the sofa. The Sub-Committee were informed that this showed repeat behaviour as at Baba Jaga 2 and that business had carried on as normal with Mr Karim’s control of the premises, as the Police had advised would happen.

·  Members were informed that this is organised crime with counterfeit goods smuggled through from Eastern Europe. A packet of cigarettes was sold at £4 well below price one would expect for duty-paid goods, and therefore, aimed at the poor, the vulnerable and children. This type of operation is not good for the community and is done to undercut supermarkets and for profit.

 

Entertainment Licensing Officer speaking in support of the application from West Yorkshire Police:

·  A timeline of the issues raised at the premises was read out for the Sub-Committee.

·  The Licensing Team had discovered that Mr Karim had resigned as Director of Gusto Market Mini Ltd. on 28^th May 2024. A copy of the notice was delivered by hand to the premises, but Mr Karim had not been at the premises. However, the person in the store had provided contact details for Mr Karim in the form of an email address.

·  The premises has failed test purchases in relation to cigarettes, vapes and medicines and there have been large quantities of cash found.

·  The targeted operations of the multi-agencies are trying to make a difference for the community of Harehills.

 

Public Health Officer speaking in support of the application provided the reasons for supporting the application:

·  The irresponsible selling of alcohol and tobacco is undermining the licensing objective of protecting children from harm. The alcohol data matrix of the MSOA shows that there are a number of vulnerable children living in the area, along with many looked after children and young people not in employment, education or training. There are also 8 childcare facilities in the location and the premises with a 1 mile radius. The GIPSIL centre is also in the vicinity of the premises.

·  There are several off licences in the area, and this increases the risk of learned behaviours for children who are constantly seeing vaping or alcohol advertisements.

·  The officer informed the Sub-Committee that she had taken part in the multi-agency operation and had seen bottles of liquid behind the counter but on show in the shape of weapons and male genitalia. It was the officer’s view that these bottles contained alcohol.

·  The officer said that a recent engagement session with residents, they had said that they did not like living in the area and were afraid for their children growing up in Harehills, seeing street gangs, street drinkers and the place had lots of litter, which all contributes to the harm of the area and to children growing up there.

 

A Member of the Sub-Committee asked for clarification on the shapes of the bottles thought to contain alcohol. There was no further question for the applicant or the officers supporting the application.

 

Mr Karim was asked to speak to the Sub-Committee and provided the following information for them:

·  He said he had tried to buy the shop as he was of the view that he could change the way the shop operated. However, he had not been aware at that time that the previous owner had been selling to teenagers.

·  He had come from London to be closer to his family, and his wife who was pregnant. He had not been unaware how bad the area was for crime and the issues associated with the shop. He was also unaware that the landlord was in prison, as he had only spoken to the landlord’s wife.

·  He said that he had done nothing wrong at the shop it was the area that was bad not the shop. All the paperwork found had belonged to the previous owner.

·  He said that the previous owner lived upstairs in the flat, but he did not know who that was, but it was not linked to the shop, and he did not know what was going on in the flat.

 

Responding to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Karim informed the Members of the following:

·  The licence had not transferred but the Director of the company had changed.

·  He was attending the hearing as he wanted to explain and clear his name. The previous owner had been dishonest and still had the flat above the premises, but the shop and flat were not linked.

·  He had no income from the shop, and he had lost money in this business.

·  Access to the flat was on the outside of the shop, he has no idea who rents it or who lives there.

 

PC Hayward summed up saying:

·  Mr Karim has told the Sub-Committee that he has not had a chance to run the shop. However, it is his name that is above the door.

·  It was the view of the Police there was sufficient evidence to support a link between the shop and the flat above via the walkie-talkies found in both premises and the Gusto Market till receipts found in the flat above. He did not believe Mr Karim’s statement, that the shop and the flat were not linked.

·  It was believed that the sales of illicit goods were making about £4,000 per day and that the flat was being used as a store for the goods, the money and as housing for staff.

 

The Sub-Committee considered all the information provided to them in the agenda pack, supplementary information and from the attendees at the hearing.

 

RESOLVED –

Review - Members unanimously resolved to revoke the premises licence.

 

Interim Steps – Members resolved that suspension of the premises licence should remain in place pending the expiry of the appeal period or, if an appeal is lodged, until the appeal is dispensed of.

 

 

The meeting concluded at 12:40.