Decision

Notification of decision following a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing to determine a review application for a Premises Licence submitted under s51 of the Licensing Act 2003

PREMISES:   Kinsley Local, 4 Kingsley Road, Hounslow TW3 1NP (“the Premises”)

APPLICANT:  Licensing Authority (“the Applicant”)

PREMISES LICENCE HOLDER: Mr Jalinda Singh Ahuja (“the Licence Holder”)

TAKE NOTICE THATON 01 September 2026 following a hearing before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub-Committee (the “Licensing Panel” or “Panel”),

HOUNSLOW COUNCIL, as the Licensing Authority for the Premises RESOLVED that:

the licence for the Premises was REVOKED as explained below.

REASONS:

1)         The Licensing Panel convened in person on 01 September 2026 to determine an application for review of the Premises Licence for Kinsley Local, 4 Kingsley Road, Hounslow TW3 1NP (“the Premises”) made under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. 

2)         The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the relevant information including:

·       Written and oral representations made by all the parties

·       The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to promote the Licensing Objectives

·       The guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Statutory Guidance”)

·       Hounslow Council’s Statement Licensing Policy 2020-2025 (“the Council’s Policy”)

·       The Human Rights Act 1988

3)    The application, which is shown as Appendix A to the Agenda is made by Bob Dear, Licensing Enforcement Regulatory Officer on behalf of the Licensing Authority, with the Applicant being a responsible authority under section 8.7 of the Statutory Guidance.  It has applied for a review of the Premises Licence on the basis that the Licence Holder has failed to meet the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder by breaching various conditions of the Premises Licence, including trading in illegal tobacco and cigarettes, the sale of non-compliant goods and a failure to comply with the CCTV conditions. The existing Premises Licence, with its additional conditions, is shown at Appendix B (Premises Licence number is H01326) and allows for the following licensable activities:

·       Supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises :

Monday to Saturday 09:00 to 23:00

Sunday 10:00 to 22:30

·       The opening hours of the premises

Monday to Sunday 09:00 to 23:00

.

4)         During the consultation process, one representation was received from Councillor Jasmine Deol in support of the application, which can be found in Appendix C. Councillor Deol did not attend the hearing. Mr Dear attended the hearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Licence Holder did not attend but was represented by counsel, Mr Yusif Alhani.

5)         The Applicant explained that the trade in illegal non-compliant goods damaged funding for essential services and undermined legitimate traders including small independent shops that serve the local Hounslow community. He also mentioned that illicit products come at a cost as the trade is known to fund organised crime and other illegal activity that causes real harm. They tend to target deprived areas and sell a packet of cigarettes for £5.00-£6.00 whilst tax on a legitimate pack costs £7.75.  The Applicant added that these incidents were evidence of complete disregard of the law. The Applicant further submitted that the sale of illicit tobacco products was estimated to cost the UK taxpayer approximately £2 billion each year. He stated that businesses involved in the illicit tobacco trade were often cash-based operations and, whilst their formal accounts may suggest limited profitability, they could generate substantial undeclared income from the sale of illicit tobacco products and maintained significant cash reserves as a result.

6)         This further meant undermining the licensing objectives under the prevention of crime and disorder.

7)         The Applicant further explained that the Premises Licence was granted on 22 May 2023. The Premises were scheduled for inspection in May 2025 with a tobacco detection dog; however, the inspection could not proceed after the shop closed shortly before officers attended.

8)         On 16 June 2026, officers from Trading Standards and Licensing carried out a joint inspection, accompanied by a tobacco detection dog. During the inspection, officers discovered significant quantities of illicit tobacco products, non-compliant vapes, and high-strength alcohol. These were found in various locations throughout the Premises, including the toilet area, behind the counter, in the storeroom, and within kitchen units. Officers also seized a notebook containing records which appeared to demonstrate ongoing involvement in the sale of illicit tobacco products. In total, officers seized: 9,730 illicit cigarettes. 268 non-compliant vapes, 1 x 50g pouch of rolling tobacco, 3.25kg of Indian tobacco, 18 pouches of snuff and 128 miniature bottles of spirits. The estimated unpaid tobacco duty exceeded £4,700.

9)         The Applicant also explained that officers identified widespread breaches of the Premises Licence conditions. Of the 30 licence conditions, 12 were found to be in breach, including: CCTV system not operating and no ability to provide footage, no staff training records, no incident/refusal register, absence of required licensing signage, the sale and storage of high-strength beers contrary to licence conditions, no ultraviolet counterfeit detection equipment, alcohol not individually labelled with the premises name, a lone worker not holding a Personal Licence and the sale and display of prohibited miniature spirit bottles. Taken together, the inspection revealed a serious and sustained failure to promote the Prevention of Crime and Disorder licensing objective. The quantity of illicit tobacco, non-compliant vaping products, and associated records indicated that the Premises were knowingly involved in the unlawful sale of illicit goods over a substantial period. Mr Dear directed the Panel to the photographs contained within the report, which he relied upon as evidence of the matters raised.

10)      The Applicant submitted that given the scale of the offending, the repeated non-compliance with licence conditions, and the apparent disregard for licensing and trading standards legislation, it was considered that the Licence Holder was failing to uphold the licensing objectives. Accordingly, he submitted that the revocation of the Premises Licence to be the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

11)      The Panel sought clarification as to what evidence led the Applicant to conclude that illicit products had been sold from the Premises over a prolonged period. In response, the Applicant explained that officers had recovered a notebook containing records of sales made over a substantial period of time, namely several months, which indicated ongoing involvement in the sale of illicit tobacco products.

12)      The Panel also queried the period between the attempted inspection in May 2025 and the subsequent inspection in June 2026. The Applicant advised that this was attributable to resource constraints.

13)      In addition, the Panel asked the Applicant to explain the basis for his assertion that the Licence Holder had demonstrated a disregard for the law. The Applicant referred to the quantity of illicit tobacco and non-compliant products discovered at the Premises, together with the numerous breaches of the Premises Licence conditions, as evidence of a sustained failure to comply with legal and regulatory requirements.

14)      The Panel queried the enforceability of Condition 25, which requires that “all alcohol be labelled with the name of the premises for clear identification as to the place of purchase by any responsible authority,” and asked whether such a condition could be effectively monitored. The Applicant explained that enforcement would require regular inspections of the Premises. Whilst acknowledging that monitoring compliance could be resource-intensive and may require additional staffing, the Applicant maintained that labelling alcohol in this manner would nonetheless assist responsible authorities in identifying products originating from the Premises.

15)      The Panel referred to the alleged breach of Condition 29 and, in particular, the photographs exhibited at BD/8, which displayed signage stating, “4 cans £1.59.” The Applicant clarified that the signage was intended to indicate that each can was priced at £1.59, rather than offering four cans for £1.59. The Applicant further confirmed that the illicit cigarettes seized at the Premises were not duty-paid. This conclusion was based, amongst other things, on the plain packaging of the products, which was indicative of non-duty-paid and non-compliant tobacco products.

16)      The Panel referred to Exhibit BD/4 and sought clarification as to where the items had been found. The Applicant confirmed that the exhibit related to products discovered within the toilet area of the Premises. The Applicant explained that the toilet was not in use and that the items stored there were obstructing the fire exit, thereby presenting a potential fire safety hazard.

17)      Additionally, the Panel queried the type of prescription medication that had been found at the Premises and asked for further details. The Applicant explained that the tablets were Sildenafil (commonly known as Viagra) and that they were not present in large quantities. The Applicant acknowledged that sildenafil can now be purchased over the counter in certain circumstances; however, the products found at the Premises were not packaged or displayed in a manner consistent with legitimate retail sale.

18)      Mr Alhani queried whether the notebook related specifically to the sale of illicit goods or to the general operation of the business. The Applicant advised that he was unable to say definitively whether the entries related solely to illicit products or to the store's wider trading activities. However, he noted that, for a premises of that size, recorded sales of approximately £2,300.00 per day appeared to be a substantial sum.

19)      Mr Alhani also queried what evidence led Trading Standards and enforcement officers to conclude that the figures recorded in the notebook related to the sale of illicit cigarettes. The Applicant explained that this conclusion was drawn from the descriptions contained within the notebook, which made specific references to "duty free" business. The Applicant considered these references, when viewed alongside the significant quantity of illicit tobacco products discovered at the premises, to be indicative of records relating to the sale of illicit tobacco products.

20)      Mr Alhani then set out the Licence Holder's position. He submitted that the Premises Licence related to the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises and did not regulate the sale of tobacco products. He argued that, in principle, the sale of tobacco could continue even if the Premises Licence were revoked and therefore invited the Panel to focus its consideration on the licensing breaches relevant to the licence under review.

21)      Mr Alhani explained that responsibility for the purchasing, management and sale of tobacco products at the Premises had been delegated to members of staff. Although the Licence Holder was not present on the day of the inspection, he accepted that he had delegated responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the business to those working at the Premises. He acknowledged that the Panel was entitled to reach its own conclusions as to whether that delegation had been appropriately exercised and supervised.

22)      The Licence Holder did not seek to dispute that a number of licence conditions had been breached. However, Mr Alhani submitted that the Panel should consider the full range of enforcement options available and determine whether revocation was a proportionate response. He argued that revocation would have a significant impact on the business and that the loss of the alcohol licence could jeopardise its viability.

23)      Mr Alhani submitted that any concerns relating to the management of the Premises and compliance with licence conditions could be addressed through alternative measures short of revocation. In particular, he invited the Panel to consider a period of suspension, suggested to be three months, to allow for the appointment of a new Designated Premises Supervisor who would be present on site and have direct responsibility for the day-to-day management of the business. During that period, the Premises could be monitored by the Licensing Authority and Trading Standards to ensure compliance with the licence conditions and to demonstrate improvements in management practices.

24)      Finally, Mr Alhani emphasised that the Premises had no previous adverse licensing history and that this was the first review application brought against the licence. He submitted that a number of the licence conditions were onerous, technical in nature, or difficult to comply with in practice. He therefore invited the Panel to focus on the alcohol-related breaches, which he characterised as relatively minor and capable of being remedied through changes to the management structure and the appointment of a new DPS, rather than revoking the Premises Licence.

25)      The Panel reminded Mr Alhani that the hearing was to determine the review of the Premises Licence and to consider the overall operation of the Premises, including whether it was being run in accordance with the licence conditions and the licensing objectives. The Panel emphasised that its consideration was not limited solely to issues relating to alcohol or tobacco but extended to all matters relevant to the operation and management of the licensed premises.

26)      In response to questions from the Panel regarding the CCTV system, the Panel noted that CCTV was a key condition of the Premises Licence and expressed concern that no one at the Premises appeared to know the password required to access the footage. Mr Alhani explained that the CCTV system had been managed by members of staff at the Premises. He stated that the system has since been restored to operation and acknowledged that, for licensed premises selling alcohol, CCTV footage will be readily available on demand. However, he accepted that the Premises had been in breach of this licence condition at the time of the inspection. Mr Alhani submitted that the Licence Holder was unaware of this breach prior to the inspection and only became aware of it when it was brought to his attention by the inspecting officers during their visit to the Premises.

27)      The Panel asked Mr Alhani whether the Licence Holder accepted that no incident book was available at the Premises at the time of the inspection, noting that this constituted a breach of a key licence condition. Mr Alhani acknowledged that no incident book was present and accepted that the Premises was in breach of this condition. Mr Alhani also accepted there was no ultra-violet light on the Premises, which was another key condition breached. 

28)      The Panel queried the extent of the Licence Holder's involvement in the operation of the Premises during the three years since the Premises Licence had been granted. Mr Alhani explained that, at the outset, the Licence Holder had been heavily involved in the day-to-day running of the business. However, over time, personal circumstances had resulted in him delegating increasing responsibility to members of staff. He stated that this had been particularly the case over the previous 12 months, during which his involvement had reduced significantly, leading to a deterioration in the management and oversight of the Premises.

29)      Mr Alhani submitted that, if the licence were to remain in force, the Licence Holder intended to become more actively involved in the operation of the business. He also proposed that the Designated Premises Supervisor role be transferred to an individual who would be present at the Premises on a day-to-day basis and able to exercise direct managerial oversight. The Panel noted, however, that no documentary evidence had been provided to demonstrate that responsibilities would become formally delegated. It was further acknowledged that no staff training records were available to evidence training, supervision, or management arrangements at the Premises.

30)      The Panel also enquired as to why the Licence Holder was not present at the hearing. Mr Alhani explained that his absence was due to personal circumstances.

31)      Mr Alhani further submitted that the Licence Holder had not profited from the sale of illicit products and was unaware that such activities were taking place at the Premises. Whilst accepting that the Licence Holder had general knowledge of the operation of the business, Mr Alhani stated that he was not involved in the day-to-day running of the Premises and did not have detailed oversight of its daily activities. He maintained that any illicit trading had occurred without the Licence Holder's knowledge or involvement.

32)      In relation to the breaches concerning the sale of high-strength beers, lagers, ciders and spirit mixtures, as well as the restricted sale of miniature spirit bottles smaller than 20cl, the Panel noted that the Premises Licence contained a condition requiring appropriate stock control measures to be in place. During the inspection, officers discovered products that were being sold in breach of those conditions.

33)      Mr Alhani accepted that the Licence Holder was not aware that such products were being stocked and sold at the Premises. Mr Alhani explained that there was a member of staff at the Premises who was heavily involved in the ordering and purchasing of stock. Whilst the Licence Holder had access to stock records, he did not oversee every stock purchase made by staff and was not directly involved in the day-to-day procurement of goods for the business.

34)      Mr Alhani further stated that the Licence Holder had completed the training required to become a Designated Premises Supervisor. However, he was unaware of any additional training undertaken following his appointment as DPS. It was accepted that no training records were available.

35)      The Panel asked Mr Alhani to clarify the extent of the Licence Holder's involvement in the day-to-day operation and management of the Premises. Mr Alhani was unable to provide an explanation of the Licence Holder's current role within the business. The Panel noted this lack of clarity when considering the Licence Holder's management and supervision of the premises.

36)      Mr Alhani confirmed that the Licence Holder was literate and understood English.

37)       The Panel considered the Statutory Guidance which states:

“Crime and disorder

1. 1        Licensing authorities should look to the police as the main source of advice on crime and disorder. They should also seek to involve the local Community Safety Partnership (CSP).

…

1. 3        Conditions should be targeted on deterrence and preventing crime and disorder including the prevention of illegal working in licensed premises (see paragraph 10.10). For example, where there is good reason to suppose that disorder may take place, the presence of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras both inside and immediately outside the premises can actively deter disorder, nuisance, anti-social behaviour and crime generally. Some licence holders may wish to have cameras on their premises for the prevention of crime directed against the business itself, its staff, or its customers. But any condition may require a broader approach, and it may be appropriate to ensure that the precise location of cameras is set out on plans to ensure that certain areas are properly covered and there is no subsequent dispute over the terms of the condition.

…

1. 5        Conditions relating to the management competency of designated premises supervisors should not normally be attached to premises licences. It will normally be the responsibility of the premises licence holder as an employer, and not the licensing authority, to ensure that the managers appointed at the premises are competent and appropriately trained. The designated premises supervisor is the key person who will usually be responsible for the day to day management of the premises by the premises licence holder, including the prevention of disorder. A condition of this kind may only be justified as appropriate in rare circumstances where it can be demonstrated that, in the circumstances associated with particular premises, poor management competency could give rise to issues of crime and disorder and public safety.

…

Public safety

1. 8        Licence holders have a responsibility to ensure the safety of those using their premises, as a part of their duties under the 2003 Act. This concerns the safety of people using the relevant premises rather than public health which is addressed in other legislation. Physical safety includes the prevention of accidents and injuries and other immediate harms that can result from alcohol consumption such as unconsciousness or alcohol poisoning. Conditions relating to public safety may also promote the crime and disorder objective as noted above. There will of course be occasions when a public safety condition could incidentally benefit a person’s health more generally, but it should not be the purpose of the condition as this would be outside the licensing authority’s powers (be ultra vires) under the 2003 Act. Conditions should not be imposed on a premises licence or club premises certificate which relate to cleanliness or hygiene.

…

1. 9        A number of matters should be considered in relation to public safety. These may include:

·       Fire safety;

·       Ensuring appropriate access for emergency services such as ambulances;

·       Good communication with local authorities and emergency services, for example communications networks with the police and signing up for local incident alerts (see paragraph 2.4 above);

·       Ensuring the presence of trained first aiders on the premises and appropriate first aid kits;

·       Ensuring the safety of people when leaving the premises (for example, through the provision of information on late-night transportation);

·       Ensuring appropriate and frequent waste disposal, particularly of glass bottles;

·       Ensuring appropriate limits on the maximum capacity of the premises (see paragraphs 2.12-2.13, and Chapter 10; and

·       Considering the use of CCTV in and around the premises (as noted in paragraph 2.3 above, this may also assist with promoting the crime and disorder objective).

…

Powers of a licensing authority on the determination of a review

1. 11.16    The 2003 Act provides a range of powers for the licensing authority which it may exercise on determining a review where it considers them appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
2. 11.17    The licensing authority may decide that the review does not require it to take any further steps appropriate to promoting the licensing objectives. In addition, there is nothing to prevent a licensing authority issuing an informal warning to the licence holder and/or to recommend improvement within a particular period of time. It is expected that licensing authorities will regard such informal warnings as an important mechanism for ensuring that the licensing objectives are effectively promoted and that warnings should be issued in writing to the licence holder.
3. 18    However, where responsible authorities such as the police or environmental health officers have already issued warnings requiring improvement – either orally or in writing – that have failed as part of their own stepped approach to address concerns, licensing authorities should not merely repeat that approach and should take this into account when considering what further action is appropriate. Similarly, licensing authorities may take into account any civil immigration penalties which a licence holder has been required to pay for employing an illegal worker.
4. 11.19    Where the licensing authority considers that action under its statutory powers is appropriate, it may take any of the following steps:

• modify the conditions of the premises licence (which includes adding new conditions or any alteration or omission of an existing condition), for example, by reducing the hours of opening or by requiring door supervisors at particular times;

• exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence, for example, to exclude the performance of live music or playing of recorded music (where it is not within the incidental live and recorded music exemption)

• remove the designated premises supervisor, for example, because they consider that the problems are the result of poor management;

• suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months;

• revoke the licence

1. 11.20    In deciding which of these powers to invoke, it is expected that licensing authorities should so far as possible seek to establish the cause or causes of the concerns that the representations identify. The remedial action taken should generally be directed at these causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response to address the causes of concern that instigated the review.
2. 11.21    For example, licensing authorities should be alive to the possibility that the removal and replacement of the designated premises supervisor may be sufficient to remedy a problem where the cause of the identified problem directly relates to poor management decisions made by that individual.
3. 11.22    Equally, it may emerge that poor management is a direct reflection of poor company practice or policy and the mere removal of the designated premises supervisor may be an inadequate response to the problems presented. Indeed, where subsequent review hearings are generated, it should be rare merely to remove a succession of designated premises supervisors as this would be a clear indication of deeper problems that impact upon the licensing objectives.
4. 23    Licensing authorities should also note that modifications of conditions and exclusions of licensable activities may be imposed either permanently or for a temporary period of up to three months. Temporary changes or suspension of the licence for up to three months could impact on the business holding the licence financially and would only be expected to be pursued as an appropriate means of promoting the licensing objectives or preventing illegal working. So, for instance, a licence could be suspended for a weekend as a means of deterring the holder from allowing the problems that gave rise to the review to happen again. However, it will always be important that any detrimental financial impact that may result from a licensing authority’s decision is appropriate and proportionate to the promotion of the licensing objectives and for the prevention of illegal working in licensed premises. But where premises are found to be trading irresponsibly, the licensing authority should not hesitate, where appropriate to do so, to take tough action to tackle the problems at the premises and, where other measures are deemed insufficient, to revoke the licence.

Reviews arising in connection with crime

1. 11.24    A number of reviews may arise in connection with crime that is not directly connected with licensable activities. For example, reviews may arise because of drugs problems at the premises, money laundering by criminal gangs, the sale of contraband or stolen goods, the sale of firearms, or the sexual exploitation of children. Licensing authorities do not have the power to judge the criminality or otherwise of any issue. This is a matter for the courts. The licensing authority’s role when determining such a review is not therefore to establish the guilt or innocence of any individual but to ensure the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
2. 11.25    Reviews are part of the regulatory process introduced by the 2003 Act and they are not part of criminal law and procedure. There is, therefore, no reason why representations giving rise to a review of a premises licence need be delayed pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings. Some reviews will arise after the conviction in the criminal courts of certain individuals, but not all. In any case, it is for the licensing authority to determine whether the problems associated with the alleged crimes are taking place on the premises and affecting the promotion of the licensing objectives. Where a review follows a conviction, it would also not be for the licensing authority to attempt to go beyond any finding by the courts, which should be treated as a matter of undisputed evidence before them.
3. 11.26    Where the licensing authority is conducting a review on the grounds that the premises have been used for criminal purposes, its role is solely to determine what steps should be taken in connection with the premises licence, for the promotion of the crime prevention objective. It is important to recognise that certain criminal activity or associated problems may be taking place or have taken place despite the best efforts of the licence holder and the staff working at the premises and despite full compliance with the conditions attached to the licence. In such circumstances, the licensing authority is still empowered to take any appropriate steps to remedy the problems. The licensing authority’s duty is to take steps with a view to the promotion of the licensing objectives and the prevention of illegal working in the interests of the wider community and not those of the individual licence holder
4. 27    There is certain criminal activity that may arise in connection with licensed premises which should be treated particularly seriously. These are the use of the licensed premises:

• for the sale and distribution of drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the laundering of the proceeds of drugs crime;

• for the sale and distribution of illegal firearms;

• for the evasion of copyright in respect of pirated or unlicensed films and music, which does considerable damage to the industries affected;

• for the illegal purchase and consumption of alcohol by minors which impacts on the health, educational attainment, employment prospects and propensity for crime of young people; • for prostitution or the sale of unlawful pornography; • by organised groups of paedophiles to groom children;

• as the base for the organisation of criminal activity, particularly by gangs;

• for the organisation of racist activity or the promotion of racist attacks;

• for employing a person who is disqualified from that work by reason of their immigration status in the UK;

• for unlawful gambling; and

• for the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and alcohol.

1. 28    It is envisaged that licensing authorities, the police, the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement) and other law enforcement agencies, which are responsible authorities, will use the review procedures effectively to deter such activities and crime. Where reviews arise and the licensing authority determines that the crime prevention objective is being undermined through the premises being used to further crimes, it is expected that revocation of the licence – even in the first instance – should be seriously considered.

38)      The Council’s Policy states the following:

“97. Each of the four licensing objectives that are at the heart of the Licensing Act 2003 are of equal importance. 

1. The Licensing Authority expects applicants to risk assess their proposals and put forward measures aimed at promoting the four licensing objectives.

The Four Licensing Objectives

1. Prevention of Crime and Disorder

The Licensing Authority will consider the following: whether the proposal includes satisfactory measures to mitigate any risk of the proposed operation contributing to crime and disorder within the premises or making an unacceptable contribution to levels of crime and disorder in the vicinity..

1. Public Safety

The Licensing Authority will consider whether the necessary and satisfactory risk assessments have been undertaken, the management procedures put in place and any relevant certification produced to demonstrate that the public safety will be ensured both on and in the vicinity of the premises.

1. Prevention of Public Nuisance

The Licensing Authority will consider whether the applicant has addressed the potential for public nuisance arising from the characteristics and style of the proposed activity and identified the appropriate steps to reduce the risk of public nuisance occurring from the premises or in its vicinity.

1. Protection of Children form Harm

The Licensing Authority will consider whether the applicant has identified and addressed any risks with the aim of protecting children from harm when on or in the vicinity of the premises..”

39)      The Council’s Policy at paragraph 242 states:

“The Licensing Authority can exercise a range of powers when dealing with a review. In cases where the licensing objective of crime and disorder is being seriously undermined, it is expected that revocation of the premises licence, even in the first instance, will be seriously considered..”

The Panel also noted that this paragraph in any case remained a consideration in the Council’s Licensing Policy.

Decision

40)      The Panel considered the options available to it, including adding the conditions proposed by the Licence Holder alongside a possible 3-month suspension. The Premises Licence already contained a number of additional conditions aimed at preventing crime and disorder, ensuring good management of the Premises, ensuring the sale of UK Duty products and restrictions on the sale of particular types of high strength alcohol and spirit miniatures.  However, the Panel determined that the conditions were expected to be complied with by a responsible Licence Holder or anyone employing staff in a business capacity irrespective of whether specified on the licence or not. The Panel also considered that removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor would not be sufficient in accordance with paragraphs 11.20 to 11.22 of the Statutory Guidance as it was considered that this was an inadequate response to the problems presented. 

41)      Considering paragraph 11.27 of the Statutory Guidance ‘there is certain criminal activity that may arise in connection with licensed premises which should be treated particularly seriously’. This includes ‘the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and alcohol’. Further considering 11.28 of the Statutory Guidance, the Panel notes that ‘it is expected that revocation of the licence – even in the first instance – should be seriously considered.’

42)      Having taken all submissions and representations into account along with the Statutory Guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy, the Panel considered that there had been a number of significant breaches which undermined the licensing objectives, namely the prevention of crime and disorder. The following conditions breached were identified:

·       Condition 1: The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Hounslow Police Licensing Team. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of recordings shall be made available upon the request of Police or authorised council officer as soon as possible and during opening hours.

·       Condition 2: A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises are open. This staff member must be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

·       Condition 3: All staff responsible for selling alcohol shall receive regular training in the Licensing Act 2003. Written records of this training shall be retained and made available to Police and Council officers with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

·       Condition 4: An incident log shall be kept at the premises and made available on request to an authorised officer of the Hounslow Council or the Police. It must be completed within 24 hours of the incident and will record the following: (a) all crimes reported to the venue (b) all ejections of patrons (c) any complaints received concerning crime and disorder (d) any incidents of disorder (e) all seizures of drugs or offensive weapons (f) any faults in the CCTV system (h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.

·       Condition 8: No Super-strength, beers, lagers ciders or spirit mixtures of 5.5% ABV (Alcohol by volume) or above shall be sold at the premises, except for premium beers and ciders supplied in glass bottles

·       Condition 15: Notices will be displayed at the entrance informing that No beers are available above 5.5% ABV Prominent signage indicating the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol shall be displayed so as to be visible before entering the premises, where alcohol is on public display, and at the point of sale.

·       Condition 16: A stock control system will be operated, so that the licensee can quickly identify where and when alcoholic goods or tobacco products have been purchased. Invoices [or copies] for all alcoholic goods or tobacco products on the premises will be kept at the shop and made available to officers from the council, police or HMRC upon request.

·       Condition 17: An ultra-violet light will be available at the premises for the purpose of checking the UK Duty Stamp on spirits as soon as practical after they have been purchased.

·       Condition 21: The installed digital CCTV system will record for 31 days all public areas of the premises which will monitor all public safety issues. The DPS will be responsible to carry out a fire and health and safety risk assessments for licensed premises all notices in relation to public health and safety will be displayed.

·       Condition 25: All alcohol to be labelled with the name of the premises for clear identification as to place of purchase by any responsible authority.

·       Condition 26: A personal Licence Holder shall be present on the premises and supervise the sale of alcohol, throughout the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol.

·       Condition 29: No single cans or bottles of beer or cider or spirit mixtures shall be sold at the premises.

·       Condition 30: No miniature bottles of spirits of 20 cl or below shall be sold from the premises.

43)      Therefore, the licence already contained a number of conditions aimed at the prevention of crime and disorder, as well as conditions regarding the good management of the Premises, and the Panel agreed that several of these had been breached as set out above.  Therefore, adding further conditions did not seem to be appropriate when existing conditions had been breached.  The Licence Holder is ultimately responsible for ensuring the good management of the Premises, yet he had apparently not kept on top of this for some significant time and he was responsible for appointing the person managing the Premises.  Having paid such little attention to the operation of the Premises so far, the Panel was not convinced that suspending the Premises Licence or changing the DPS would ensure the future good management of the Premises such as to uphold the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder.

44)      The Panel therefore decided that revoking the licence was the appropriate and proportionate remedy in the circumstances as a breach of the prevention of crime and disorder objectives were clear.

45)      The Licensing Panel therefore decided to REVOKE the Premises Licence.

Right to Appeal

46)      Any party aggrieved with the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee on one or more grounds set out in Schedule 5 of Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the local Magistrate’s Court within 21 days of notification of this decision.