To consider an application for the review of a Premises Licence in respect of Reading Express, 102 Oxford Road, Reading, RG1 7LL

 

The Sub-Committee considered a report on an application by Reading Borough Council (RBC) Licensing Team to review a premises licence in respect of Reading Express, 102 Oxford Road, Reading, RG1 7LL.

 

The report explained that the premises currently had the benefit of a premises licence which authorised the following licensable activities and hours:

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol - Off the Premises:

Monday to Sunday from 0600hrs to 2300hrs

 

Hours the Premises is Open to the Public:

Monday to Sunday from 0600hrs to 2030hrs

 

The report stated that the application for a review of the premises licence had been submitted by Reading Borough Council’s Licensing Team who were a named responsible authority under the Licensing Act 2003. The application had been submitted to prevent the further undermining of the following licensing objectives:

 

• the Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
• the Protection of Children from Harm;
• Public Safety.

 

The review application had been submitted in order to address the failure of the premises licence holder to promote the licensing objectives and recommended the revocation of the premises licence. The report stated that a joint inspection by RBC’s Licensing Enforcement Team and the Home Office’s Immigration Enforcement Licensing Compliance Team had identified the employment of an illegal worker by the premises licence holder.

 

A copy of the application to the review premises licence, which included a copy of the premises licence was attached to the report at Appendix NB-1.

 

During the 28-day consultation period, valid representations had been received from the following Responsible Authority:

 

• Declan Smyth, Thames Valley Police Licensing Team – attached at Appendix NB-2.

 

The report explained that in determining the application for review the Sub-Committee had a duty as the Licensing Authority to carry out its functions with a view to promoting the four Licensing Objectives. The Licensing Authority must also have regard to the representations received, its Statement of Licensing Policy and to any relevant sections of the Statutory Guidance issued to licensing authorities. Furthermore, in determining the review application, the Sub-Committee could take such of the following steps it considered appropriate and proportionate for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives:

 

·       Take no further action;

·       To issue formal warnings to the premises supervisor and/or premises licence holder;

·       Modify the conditions of the licence (including but not limited to hours of operation of licensable activities);

·       Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of a licence;

·       Remove the designated premises supervisor;

·       Suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months;

·       Revoke the licence.

 

Where the Sub-Committee took a step mentioned in the third and fourth points above it may provide that the modification or exclusion was to have effect for a period not exceeding three months or permanently.

 

The report set out paragraphs 1.5, 1.6, 3.2, 3.10, 4.15, 5.13, 5.15, 7.13, 9.12, 9.13, 9.15, 9.16, 9.18, 9.20 and 9.21 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The report also set out paragraphs 1.2 to 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 2.28, 9.12, 9.13, 9.42, 9.43, 11.1, 11.2, 11.10, 11.16 to 11.18 and 11.25 of the Amended Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003. The report also referred to other legislation and relevant case law for consideration.

 

Following the circulation of the agenda, the Premises Licence Holder had submitted additional information relating to staff training with regards to the sale of alcohol.

 

Robert Smalley, Licensing Enforcement Officer, Reading Borough Council attended the meeting on behalf of Anthony Chawama who had submitted the application for review but who was unable to attend the meeting. He addressed the Sub-Committee on the review application and asked and responded to questions.

 

Mr Ravindar Singh Arora, the Designated Premises Supervisor, and Ms Maninder Kaur and Mr Surendra Panchal of Personal Licence Courses UK Limited, representing Mr Arora were present at the meeting. They addressed the Sub-Committee and asked and answered questions.

 

Nicola Butler, Licensing Enforcement Officer, Reading Borough Council, presented the report to the Sub-Committee.

 

Resolved –

 

(1)           That the premises licence in respect of Reading Express, 102 Oxford Road, Reading, RG1 7LL to authorise the following licensable activities and hours, be revoked:

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol - Off the Premises:

Monday to Sunday from 0600hrs to 2300hrs

Hours the Premises is Open to the Public:

Monday to Sunday from 0600hrs to 2030hrs

 

(2)           That the Sub-Committee’s reasons be noted as follows:

 

REASONS:

 

(a)  The Sub-Committee had read and considered the application for review, all accompanying additional documents and representations and had listened carefully to the oral representations made by those present at the meeting;

 

(b)  In making its decision the Sub-Committee had regard to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, the Secretary of State’s Guidance issued under Section 182 of that Act, and to Reading Borough Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy;

 

(c)  The Sub-Committee noted Paragraph 1.18 of the Secretary of State’s Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 that required licensing authorities to consider the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits;

 

(d)  The Sub-Committee noted that the application for review had attracted one representation from Thames Valley Police’s Licensing Team. The Police made representations that the only proportionate option on review, to prevent further undermining of the licencing objectives, was revocation of the licence.

 

(e)  The Sub-Committee further noted that the Secretary of State’s Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 at paragraph 11.27 stated that certain activities should be treated particularly seriously, and this included employing someone who was disqualified from that work by reason of their immigration status in the UK. Paragraph 11.28 of the guidance stated that if the Licensing Authority determined that the crime prevention objective was being undermined through the premises being used to further crimes it was expected that revocation of the licence – even in the first instance – should be seriously considered.

 

(f)    The Sub-Committee was mindful of the relevant case law cited - namely Hope & Glory Public House v City of Westminster [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (decisions must be rational, justified, and based on the promotion of the licensing objectives). East Lindsey District Council v Abu Hanif (t/a Zara’s Restaurant) (2016) (that the licensing objectives are prospective, and that the prevention of crime and disorder requires a prospective consideration of what is warranted in the public interest, having regard to the twin considerations of prevention and deterrence) and R (on application of Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral Magistrates’ Court and Others (2008) EWHC 838 (Admin) (Responsible Authorities are experts in their fields, and that weight should be attached to their representations).

 

(g)  The Sub-Committee had regard to all of the powers available to it on review of a Premises Licence subject to s.52(4) of the Licencing Act 2003 namely:

 

i.      the modification of the conditions of the premises licence;

ii.     the exclusion of a licensable activity from the scope of the licence;

iii.    the suspension of the licence for a period not exceeding 3 months;

iv.   the removal of the designated premises supervisor;

v.     the revocation of the licence

 

(h)  The Sub-Committee had considered the need to promote and protect the four licensing objectives and considered the ‘prevention of crime and disorder’ objective was engaged in this case. In the view of the Sub-Committee, the appropriate and proportionate response, based on the evidence submitted and put before it, was to exercise its powers under section 52(4)(e) of the Licensing Act 2003 to revoke the Premises Licence of Maahi Food & Wine Ltd (t/a Reading Express).

 

(i)    By virtue of the written and oral evidence heard, the Sub-Committee took the view that there were serious concerns that the Licensee was not managing the premises in such a way as to promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee had a number of concerns about the Licensee’s decision making and understanding of the need to prioritise the objectives following the confirmation that he actively chose to open the shop to trade on the day in question.

 

(j)    The Sub-Committee determined that the crime prevention objective was being undermined through the premises being used to further crimes and therefore felt that revocation of the licence was the appropriate and proportionate response.

 

Any party to the hearing may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court in writing, within 21 days.