The Kingston upon Thames Licensing Sub-Committee met to review the premises licence for the Coombe Convenience Store, following an application by the Metropolitan Police. The sub-committee decided to amend a condition of the licence, requiring CCTV footage to be retained for 90 days instead of 31.

Review of Coombe Convenience Store Licence

The sub-committee reviewed the premises licence for the Coombe Convenience Store, 8 The Triangle, Kingston-Upon-Thames, KT1-3RT, following an application from the Metropolitan Police. The police had requested a review of the licence, claiming that the premises licence holder had failed to uphold the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder. The police alleged that the store was selling stolen goods. The application sought revocation of the premises licence.

Binny Day, the Licensing Officer, told the sub-committee that a public notice had been placed near the premises, advertising the review. The council had also consulted 67 addresses in writing, receiving one representation in objection to the review.

The meeting was initially held in private due to the nature of the information to be discussed.

The Metropolitan Police informed the sub-committee that they had decided not to proceed with the investigation due to a lack of evidence, and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided not to prosecute the premises licence holder or his employee.

The Council's Trading Standards officer, Amy Algar, told the sub-committee that they had engaged with the trader on multiple occasions and had an ongoing prosecution case in progress. The matters under investigation were:

• The alleged sale of alcohol to underage children
• Alleged illicit vapes observed at the counter
• Pricing issues in the store
• The weight and measures scale being kept behind the counter where the display was not visible to consumers
• Open cigarette packs found under the till, indicating the possible illegal sale of loose cigarettes
• Counterfeit goods seized during a warrant execution relating to stolen goods
• A pack of mothballs that are banned

The premises had also been subject to Operation CECE¹ where a large quantity of concealed illicit vapes were found.

Jill Sherratt, agent for the premises licence holder, told the sub-committee that her client, Mr Kummeran, had owned the store for 22 years, employed two staff, and carried 6,000 lines of stock. She said that the store offered a free delivery service, international money transfers, and acted as a parcel collection and drop-off point. She explained that the vapes were in a crisp box awaiting collection by the supplier, and the cigarettes behind the counter had been returned by a customer who did not like the flavour. She said that various items seized were gifts from friends, and some were a result of exchanges with customers. She noted that the police DNA test had not found evidence that Mr Kummeran was involved in the theft of goods or handling stolen goods.

Mr Kummeran told the sub-committee that he had a clean record and that he always prioritised vulnerable and elderly people.

During questioning from the councillors, Mr Kummeran said that the security tags on some items were stickers that remained on the bottle even after it had been sold. He also said that he had now made sure to record every item of stock they had for sale or sold, following advice from Amy Algar, the Council's Trading Standards officer.

In closing, Jill Sherratt asked the sub-committee to consider the 22-year history of the store and the fact that the judge had refused a closure order. She said that the issue over record keeping should not cloud the issue of theft. She suggested that the sub-committee could attach conditions to the licence to deal with bookkeeping issues.

Amy Algar said that Trading Standards supported the need for a review of the premises licence, and would continue to investigate any future complaints.

The police officer acknowledged a discrepancy in his statement, where he had listed items on the wrong address sheet. He said that the community must be able to trust that licensed premises are not hubs for crime, but law-abiding and trusted premises.

The sub-committee decided to amend condition 5 of the premises licence to require CCTV footage to be retained for 90 days instead of 31 days.

The sub-committee noted that it was regrettable that the Metropolitan Police included a statement unconnected to the premises in the papers, and that Mr Kummeran had made failures in his organisation, book keeping and stock management, but did not handle stolen goods and was not concerned in theft.

The sub-committee noted its powers on a review, and that a further review application could be submitted by any person should any problems arise relating to any of the licensing objectives following the review.

The sub-committee referenced the Secretary of State's Guidance and the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy. They also referenced the case of Daniel Thwaites v Wirral Borough Magistrates' Court (2008), which stated that decisions must not be based on speculation or unjustified fears, but on real evidence. They also referenced R (on the application of Bristol City Council) v Bristol Magistrates' Court 2009, which stated that conditions cannot be imposed for compliance with other legislative frameworks where they are adequately dealt with by other legislation, e.g. Trading Standards legislation.