Alcohol sales premises licence revoked for Newport shop

A Newport shop has lost its fight to keep its alcohol sales licence after councillors decided it was ‘undermining licensing objectives’.

Newport Premier, in High Street sits close to Haberdashers’ Adams School and members of the Licensing Sub-committee decided to revoke its premises licence after hearing that there had been ‘issues with other age-restricted products.’

One of Telford & Wrekin Council’s licensing objectives is the protection of children from harm.

Monday’s licensing sub committee was told that complaints alleging that alcohol was being sold to children continued to be made after business owner Ivor Paris had pleaded guilty at Telford Magistrates Court to selling nicotine products to persons under 18.

Mr Paris, aged 25, was handed a maximum fine of £2,500, reduced to £1,666 for an early guilty plea following a trading standards test purchase involving a teenager. The business was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £660 and the full prosecution costs.

Mr Paris said: “I have made some mistakes, I have not been 100 per cent on everything. But everything is now in place.”

He added that since getting the business he had been “working 90-100 hours a week” and had repeatedly asked the council for advice. Council representatives at the sub committee at Meeting Point House, in Southwater,  said they had given him advice.

Solicitor Andrea Forrest, on behalf of Mr Paris, said: “The committee’s job is not to punish, that’s a matter for the courts. You should be permissive, not punitive.”

She added that a member of staff, no longer working at the shop, had sold a teenager a vape two days after starting the job. That member of staff ‘could not speak English’ and had not been trained.

Ms Forrest said her client is a 25-year-old who has ‘tried his best to remedy the issues’.

“It was a one-off mistake with the sale of a disposable vape and they are not available for sale any more. It was not the sale of alcohol.”

“Everything is now in place,” she added.

The committee had heard that the council had continued to receive complaints about sales of alcohol to children. But Ms Forrest said this was not ‘evidence’ that they could contest.

“He now has me on speed dial and can call me if he has problems,” she added.

She added that the shop has a record of refusing to sell age restricted proucts to children. She added that revocation should be kept for more serious cases, such as the supply of drugs.

Councillor Rachael Tyrrell (Conservative, Priorslee) said the shop had “not observed the law and instead was brought here kicking and screaming”.

“The council has been receiving lots and lots of complaints all the time. It seems that you have been doing training the day before the hearing. We have brought you here kicking and screaming.

“It does not fill me with confidence.”

The committee heard that the shop’s designated premises supervisor had moved to Wales. Officials said they had tried without success to contact her and that no application had been made to change the named person.

Councillors also heard from West Mercia Police that the shop also sold items “similar to crack pipes and cannabis rolling kits.”

But when quizzed by Councillor Peter Scott (Independent, Newport West) a police licensing officer confirmed that shops “aren’t prohibited from selling them, but it is not a good image.”

The police and the shop representatives agreed on a list of amended conditions that councillors could insist on if they were minded not to revoke the licence.

After a period of deliberation at the end of a five hour meeting the council’s solicitor announced that the elected councillors had decided to revoke the shop’s alcohol sales premises licence.

The meeting was told that the committee members had concluded that they believed on the balance of probabilities that the shop had been “undermining the licensing objective of the protection of children from harm.”

“There has been no alcohol offence but there have been issues with other age-restricted products,” the committee was told. The committee ‘did not have confidence’ that the business was “changing the way it operates.”

The business will have 21 days in which to lodge an appeal to magistrates after they receive the full written decision notice, the committee was told.