The Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment reported upon an application that had been received by a local resident to review the Premises Licence in respect of Poulton Pop In, 411-413 Poulton Road, Wallasey.

The premises currently hold a Premises Licence which allows the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises only.

The Strategic Director advised that the Sub-Committee may, having regard to the application for review and any relevant representations, take such of the following steps as it considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives:

·  Modify the Conditions of the Licence.

·  Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the Licence.

·  Remove the Designated Premises Supervisor.

·  Suspend the Licence for a period not exceeding three months.

·  Revoke the Licence.

The Licensing Authority may decide that no action would be appropriate if it found that the review did not require it to take any steps necessary to promote the licensing objectives.

The application had been received from Merseyside Police and they advised that the grounds for review related to the premises knowingly employing an individual who could not lawfully be employed in the UK which had led to the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder being undermined.  A copy of the representation was available.

The Premises Licence Holder, Mr Krishnabalan, attended the meeting with his representative Mr Douglas.

Sergeant S Barrigan also attended the meeting.

The Senior Licensing Manager confirmed that all documentation had been sent and received.

Sergeant Barrigan reported upon a visit made to the premises on 17 September 2014 where it was found that an individual had been working at the premises who did not have permission to work in the UK.  Sergeant Barrigan referred to an interview that had taken place with an Immigration Officer during which Kanagarathinam had admitted to working in the shop for two to three months and that he had been given the job by his brother-in-law, Paheerathan who had subsequently been issued a £10,000 penalty by the Home Office in December 2014.  Sergeant Barrigan referred to paragraphs 11.27 and 11.28 of the Statutory Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 as it was his opinion that as the crime and prevention licensing objective had been undermined, serious consideration should be given to revoking the Premises Licence.

Sergeant Barrigan referred to other occurrences at the premises which had given cause for concern that the licensing objectives had not been upheld, namely the refusal to provide CCTV upon request and the sale of alcohol to a person under the age of 18 years.

Sergeant Barrigan referred to the review and whether an illegal immigrant had been knowingly employed at the premises.  He cited the definition of ‘knowledge’ from the Home Office Guidance 2013.  Sergeant Barrigan expressed his disappointment in respect of the fact that the new Designated Premises Supervisor was not in attendance at the meeting and therefore was unable to respond to any questions.

Mr Douglas did not dispute the outcome of the visit made to the premises by the Police on 17 September 2013, however, he advised Members that Mr Krishnabalan, the Premises Licence Holder, did not know that a person who was not entitled to work in the UK had been working at the premises as he lived in London at the time and had appointed a Designated Premises Supervisor to run the business.  He believed the Premises Licence Holder could not be held liable for failings at the premises.  Mr Douglas did not dispute the underage sale made at the premises and referred to the incident in respect of the CCTV stating that this could not be downloaded.  He referred to the penalty issued by the Home Office and advised that this had been reduced to £7,000 and that the Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor were jointly liable.  Mr Douglas advised Members that the business partnership had now been dissolved and that a new Designated Premises Supervisor had been appointed at the premises and asked that the Premises Licence be modified with conditions and not be revoked.

Mr Douglas and Mr Krishnabalan responded to questions from Members of the Sub-Committee and Mr D K Abraham, Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Douglas was requested to clarify in writing a staff rota for the premises and who lived above the premises.

A short adjournment took place.

The meeting reconvened and a staff rota was distributed to Members together with the names of the individuals who lived above the premises.

Mr Douglas and Mr Krishnabalan responded to questions from Sergeant Barrigan.

Mr Douglas informed Members that new staff would be in place at the premises and believed that the revocation of the Premises Licence was unnecessary.

Sergeant Barrigan requested that the Premises Licence be revoked.  He accepted that an illegal immigrant had been employed by a person who was no longer involved with the premises, however, he believed that employers retained the responsibility to make the necessary checks on individuals working at the premises.  He referred to paragraphs 11.27 and 11.28 of the Statutory Guidance issued under the Licensing Act 2003 and requested Members to give serious consideration to the revocation of the Premises Licence.

Resolved –

(1)  That in accordance with Regulation 14(2) of the Licensing Act 2003, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the application.

(2)  That the meeting be adjourned to Wednesday 22 April 2015 in order that the Designated Premises Supervisor may attend.