Decision

Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to determine an application for a review of a premises licence under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003

PREMISES: News Box, 5 Rochester Parade, High Street, Feltham TW13 4DX (‘the Premises’)

APPLICANT: Bob Dear, Licensing Enforcement, Regulatory Enforcement Officer London Borough of Hounslow, Licensing Authority.

TAKE NOTICE THAT ON 15 October 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:

On review of the premises licence for News Box, 5 Rochester Parade, High Street, Feltham TW13 4DX, the premises licence is REVOKED.

REASONS:

Introduction

1. The Panel convened to determine an application for a review of the premises licence for News Box, 5 Rochester Parade, High Street, Feltham TW13 4DX, pursuant to section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003.

1. The application was made by Hounslow Licensing Enforcement (Appendix A), who sought a review of the Premises Licence due to serious concerns that the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective was being undermined. The Applicant invited the Panel to consider revocation of the Premises Licence.

1. No other representations were received.

1. The Premises Licence Holder was present and represented and suggested the licence be suspended, subject to conditions, rather than revoked.

1. The Premises Licence allowed for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises. The Panel took all relevant matters into consideration, including the Licensing Act 2003, the Secretary of State's Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy and all written and oral representations presented during the hearing.

Licensing Panel hearing

1. At the start of the hearing the Chair informed those in attendance that one member of the Licensing Panel was absent. The Chair further explained that, pursuant to paragraph 11.1 of the London Borough of Hounslow Constitution, Part 4B Committee Procedure Rules, the quorum for a panel comprising three members is two members. The Panel was therefore quorate and able to proceed with the hearing.

1. During the licensing panel hearing the facts giving rise to the review application were set out by the Licensing Officer. The Applicant then presented its case in support of the review application. The Premises Licence Holder did not materially dispute that illicit tobacco products had been discovered within the Premises but disputed the inferences to be drawn from those facts and submitted that revocation was not an appropriate or proportionate outcome.

Submissions by the Applicant

1. The Applicant outlined the circumstances giving rise to the review application and referred the Panel to the evidence contained within the review bundle.

1. The Applicant submitted that authorised officers had attended the Premises and had discovered illicit tobacco products during an inspection of the Premises.

1. The Applicant submitted that the products were concealed beneath confectionery and that the concealment of the products was a significant aggravating feature.

1. The Applicant further submitted that the products had been entered onto the till system, demonstrating that they were intended to form part of the stock available for sale.

1. The Applicant submitted that the Premises Licence Holder was the sole director of both News Box and Swan News and that concerns regarding illicit tobacco products had already arisen at Swan News approximately one week earlier.

1. The Applicant submitted that the Premises Licence Holder therefore knew, or ought reasonably to have known, about the risk posed by similar products remaining within News Box.

1. The Applicant further relied upon the explanation advanced by the Premises Licence Holder concerning a trainee employee entering products onto the till system and submitted that this explanation lacked credibility.

1. The Applicant submitted that responsibility for the offending had been minimised and that insufficient accountability had been demonstrated.

1. The Applicant referred the Panel to paragraphs 11.28 and 11.29 of the Secretary of State's Guidance, which identify the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and goods as conduct that should be treated particularly seriously and in respect of which revocation should be seriously considered even in the first instance.

1. The Applicant submitted that the remedial measures and records produced by the Premises Licence Holder should be afforded limited weight because they had largely been introduced after the inspection and commencement of review proceedings.

1. The Applicant submitted that the circumstances demonstrated serious failings in the management and operation of the Premises and invited the Panel to revoke the Premises Licence.

Submissions by the Premises Licence Holder (PLH)

1. The Premises Licence Holder attended the hearing and was represented.

1. The Premises Licence Holder accepted that the products had been found within the Premises and expressed regret regarding the circumstances giving rise to the review.

1. The Premises Licence Holder submitted that there had been no intention to undermine the licensing objectives and that steps had been taken following the inspection to improve compliance and management controls.

1. The Premises Licence Holder relied upon supplementary evidence including training records, refusals registers, incident logs, authorisation records and other compliance documentation.

1. The Premises Licence Holder submitted that those records demonstrated that improvements had been implemented following the inspection and that measures were now in place to promote the licensing objectives.

1. The Premises Licence Holder further relied upon witness evidence which was said to demonstrate compliance measures and improvements implemented following the inspection.

1. The Premises Licence Holder submitted that the Premises was now operating in a compliant manner and that confidence in the management of the business ought to be restored.

1. The Premises Licence Holder submitted that revocation would be disproportionate and invited the Panel to consider alternatives available under section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003.

1. In particular, the Premises Licence Holder submitted that a period of suspension together with additional conditions would adequately address the concerns identified by the Applicant and promote the licensing objectives going forward.

1. The Premises Licence Holder invited the Panel to conclude that the remedial measures implemented since the inspection demonstrated a commitment to future compliance and that revocation of the Premises Licence was neither necessary nor proportionate.

Summing up by the parties

1. The Applicant submitted that the concealment of illicit tobacco products within the Premises, together with the circumstances surrounding the discovery of those products, constituted serious criminal conduct and that the explanations provided by the Premises Licence Holder failed to adequately account for the offending.

1. The Premises Licence Holder submitted that significant remedial measures had been implemented following the inspection and invited the Panel to conclude that suspension of the licence, together with conditions, would be a more proportionate outcome than revocation.

1. The Applicant and the Premises Licence Holder were each given the opportunity to make final submissions before the Panel retired to deliberate.

Decision

1. The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the relevant information including:

1. The Licensing Act 2003;
2. The Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, in particular paragraphs 11.28 and 11.29;
3. The London Borough of Hounslow Statement of Licensing Policy;
4. The Human Rights Act 1998;
5. Written and oral representations made at the hearing; and
6. All documentary evidence contained within the hearing bundle and supplementary evidence submitted on behalf of the Premises.

1. The Panel carefully considered all of the evidence before it together with the Licensing Act 2003, the Secretary of State's Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy and the submissions made by all parties. The Panel also took into account the Human Rights Act 1998 and assessed the proportionality of its decision.

1. The Panel noted that the Premises Licence Holder did not materially dispute that illicit tobacco products were discovered within the Premises and subsequently seized.

1. The Panel found that illicit tobacco products were present within the Premises and that those products had been concealed beneath confectionery. The Panel considered the concealment of the products to be a significant aggravating feature and found that the location of the products strongly supported the inference that there was an awareness that they should not have been openly visible within the Premises.

1. The Panel further noted evidence that the products had been entered onto the till system. The Panel considered this a significant evidential factor in assessing the explanations advanced on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder. The Panel also considered this to be indicative of an intention that the products be available for sale through the business.

1. The Panel noted that the Premises Licence Holder was the sole director of both News Box and Swan News.

1. The Panel further noted that the inspection of Swan News had taken place approximately one week before the inspection of News Box and that concerns regarding illicit tobacco products had already been identified by enforcement officers.

1. The Panel found that the Premises Licence Holder was therefore aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of the concerns arising from the earlier inspection and that this should have prompted immediate enquiries regarding stock, compliance and product sourcing across both businesses.

1. The Panel did not accept that the Premises Licence Holder would have remained unaware of matters occurring at News Box following the earlier inspection. The Panel considered it inherently unlikely that no enquiries would have been made regarding stock present within the second premises following the identification of illicit tobacco at Swan News.

1. The Panel carefully considered the explanation advanced that a trainee employee had independently entered the products onto the till system without instruction, management involvement or oversight.

1. The Panel did not find this explanation credible.

1. The Panel considered it implausible that a trainee employee would independently enter products onto the till system, including the relevant product information and pricing data, without managerial knowledge, authority or oversight.

1. The Panel therefore rejected the explanation advanced and did not regard it as a satisfactory explanation for the presence of the products or their appearance within the till system.

1. The Panel was also concerned that responsibility for the offending was repeatedly minimised and attributed elsewhere. The explanations provided sought to place responsibility upon employees whilst distancing management from the conduct identified.

1. The Panel did not find those explanations persuasive and considered that they demonstrated a failure to accept full responsibility for the matters identified during the inspection.

1. The Panel concluded that meaningful acceptance of responsibility was an important factor when assessing whether confidence in future compliance had been restored. In the Panel's view, the explanations advanced did not demonstrate sufficient recognition of the seriousness of the offending or adequate insight into the underlying causes of the failings that gave rise to the review.

1. The Panel therefore concluded that this was not a case involving an isolated mistake, administrative error or failure of record-keeping. Rather, the Panel was satisfied that serious criminal conduct had occurred within licensed premises.

1. The Panel also considered the supplementary evidence submitted on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder.

1. The Panel accepted that steps had been taken following the inspection and following commencement of the review proceedings. However, much of the documentation relied upon had been created after the inspection and after the Premises Licence Holder became aware of the concerns raised by the Applicant.

1. The Panel therefore found that much of the supplementary material demonstrated remedial action taken in response to enforcement intervention rather than evidence of effective management controls operating within the business at the time of the offending.

1. Whilst the Panel accepted that some improvements had been made following the inspection, it was not satisfied that the underlying causes of the offending had been adequately identified, acknowledged or addressed.

1. The Panel further placed weight upon the evidence concerning the acquisition and intended sale of the stock. The Panel considered that the circumstances indicated a financial motivation behind the presence of the illicit products within the Premises and represented a serious failure of management judgement and purchasing controls.

1. The Panel also considered the witness evidence relied upon by the Premises Licence Holder and accepted that it demonstrated some subsequent improvement following the inspection. However, the Panel concluded that such evidence provided limited assistance in determining the circumstances that existed at the time of the offending or whether the underlying causes of the offending had been adequately addressed.

1. The Panel had particular regard to paragraphs 11.28 and 11.29 of the Secretary of State's Guidance. The Panel noted that the Guidance identifies the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and goods as conduct which should be treated particularly seriously and further provides that revocation should be seriously considered where such conduct is identified.

1. The Panel considered that the storage of illicit tobacco products within the Premises, together with their concealment beneath confectionery, constituted precisely the type of serious criminal conduct contemplated by the Guidance.

1. The Panel also had regard to the principles identified in East Lindsey District Council v Abu Hanif [2016] EWHC 1265 (Admin). The Panel reminded itself that review proceedings are not dependent upon criminal convictions or criminal prosecutions and that the relevant question is what step is appropriate and proportionate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

1. The Panel also considered the wider public interest in ensuring that licensed premises do not become involved in the storage or sale of illicit goods and the deterrent effect of regulatory action where serious criminal conduct is identified. The Panel considered these matters to be relevant to the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

1. The Panel concluded that the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective was directly and seriously engaged.

1. The Panel carefully considered all of the powers available under section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003.

1. The Panel concluded that taking no action would be wholly inadequate.

1. The Panel considered whether additional conditions would adequately address the concerns identified. The Panel concluded that they would not.

1. The Panel found that the concerns identified did not arise from deficiencies in conditions, training requirements or record-keeping obligations. Rather, they arose from the conduct and decision-making which resulted in illicit tobacco products being present, concealed and entered onto the till system within the Premises.

1. The Panel also considered whether removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor, suspension of the licence, or a combination of suspension and additional conditions would adequately promote the licensing objectives.

1. The Panel concluded that the concerns identified extended beyond the suitability of any individual officeholder and instead related more fundamentally to the overall management, operation and decision-making within the business.

1. The Panel was not satisfied that the underlying causes of the offending had been adequately addressed or would be permanently rectified. The Panel was not satisfied that the underlying failures and decision-making which resulted in the unlawful conduct had been sufficiently identified, acknowledged or addressed.

1. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that this was not a case in which the concerns identified could be adequately addressed through conditions, audits, suspension or a change of personnel.

1. The Panel was satisfied that the matters established during the review reflected more fundamental concerns regarding compliance, accountability and management decision-making.

1. The Panel concluded that the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective had been seriously undermined and that it could not be satisfied that the licensing objectives would be promoted going forward.

1. Having regard to the presence of illicit tobacco products, their concealment, their entry onto the till system, the earlier inspection at Swan News, the rejection of the explanations advanced, the repeated attempts to minimise responsibility, the limited weight that could properly be attached to the remedial evidence and the Panel's conclusion that the underlying causes of the offending had not been adequately addressed, the Panel concluded that revocation was both necessary and proportionate.

1. For these reasons the Licensing Panel decided to REVOKE the Premises Licence.

Right to Appeal

1. Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Licensing Panel may appeal to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days of notification of this decision.