The Alcohol & Gambling Licensing Sub-Committee of West Northamptonshire Council were scheduled to meet remotely via Zoom to discuss a premises licence review application for Istanbul Mega Market. The sub-committee were also expected to decide whether to exclude the press and public while they discussed the application.

Istanbul Mega Market - Premises Licence Review

The sub-committee were scheduled to discuss an application by Northamptonshire Police for a review of the premises licence for Istanbul Mega Market, 30 Gold Street, Northampton, NN1 1RS.

The review application was submitted on the grounds of failure to promote the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder. The application stated that the review relates to the premises being used for the sale or storage of illicit tobacco products, which is an offence under section 144 of the Licensing Act 2003¹.

Section 11:27 of the Secretary of States section 182 Statutory Guidance to the Licensing Act 2003 states: There is certain criminal activity that may arise in connection with licensed premises which should be treated particularly seriously. One activity detailed is the premises being used for the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and alcohol.

According to the report pack, two inspections were carried out at the premises by West Northamptonshire Council Trading Standards and Northamptonshire Police officers.

During the first visit on 21 March 2025, officers allegedly witnessed an employee produce a packet of cigarettes from a room at the rear of the premises, rather than from a display behind the shop counter.

During a second enforcement visit on 29 March 2025, officers seized 163 individual packets of cigarettes and 0.4kg of hand rolling tobacco from a black courier box and a bag in the rear storeroom of the shop. The report pack stated that the estimated value of the products, if sold at UK retail prices, would be £2783.65, but if sold for the reduced price offered to officers on 21 March 2025, would have a street value of £879.

The report pack also stated that an immigration check was conducted on an employee present during the inspection, and they were found not to have the right to work in the UK. The employee was arrested and handed to immigration services.

The current premises licence holder is Istanbul Mega Market Ltd and the designated premises supervisor is Ms Ana Lada. She is also the holder of a personal licence.

The premises is licensed for the regulated activity of the sale by retail of alcohol (off the premises only) Monday to Sunday 07:00 to 01:00.

The sub-committee were advised that they must take such steps that it considers appropriate for the promotion of the four licensing objectives[^3]. The report pack outlined that the sub-committee could choose to:

• modify the conditions of the licence
• exclude a licensable activity from the licence
• remove the designated premises supervisor
• suspend the premises licence for a period not exceeding 3 months
• revoke the licence

The report pack also included a statement from Steven Michael Hay, Investigator, who stated that on 29 March 2025 he visited Istanbul Mega Market with Trading Standards and Police colleagues. He stated that a male worker was present on the premises but refused to provide his name or any form of identification, and was later arrested by the Police in relation to immigration matters. Mr Hay stated that quantities of illegal tobacco products were found in the rear room of the premises, and that another male person arrived at the premises who gave his name as Mohammed Demici and introduced himself as the Manager and a Director of the company which owned the business, Istanbul Mega Market Ltd.

Exclusion of Press and Public

The sub-committee were scheduled to consider whether to exclude the press and public from the meeting while they discussed the premises licence review application for Istanbul Mega Market.

The recommendation in the report pack was that the sub-committee resolve to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the item of business on the grounds that, if the public and press were present, it would be likely that exempt information would be disclosed to them, and that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.