Lincolnshire Supermarket Wins the Right to Continue Trading in the Appeal Court

July 2007

In July 2007, a Supermarket located in Heighington, Lincolnshire, were successful in their appeal in the Lincoln Magistrates Court to overturn the 6 week suspension of their Premises Licence imposed by North Kesteven District Council (NKDC) at a review hearing earlier the year in April 2007.

In February 2007 Lincolnshire Police served an application to review the Premises Licence at the premises as three test purchases at the premises over a fourteen month period and all three tests failed.

Once the premises became aware of the review application they contacted Michael Kheng of Kurnia Licensing Consultants for assistance. Kurnia were quick to advise that there had been a failing on the part of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and suggested that someone more capable was to be named as the DPS. A suitable person was identified, attended the BIIAB NCPLH training course with Kurnia Training, gained their Personal Licence and then was named as the DPS. Kurnia put together a training package for staff in regard to underage sales the offences and this was rolled out to all the staff at the premises. Kurnia also then advised the premises to adopt the ‘Challenge 21’ scheme where anyone who appears to be aged 21 or under should be asked for ID. All these measures were put into immediate action well before the review hearing in April 2007.

At the review hearing the premises were advised that in addition to some extra conditions being placed on the Premises Licence the Premises Licence itself would be suspended for the sale of alcohol for a period of six weeks to ensure that the management and supervision of the premises is properly in order following the very recent appointment of the new DPS. It was also stated that the period of suspension would also enable the training of staff to be embedded fully.

After the hearing Kheng, from Kurnia Licensing Consultants, said that he 'was not happy with the decision of NKDC and thought that the reason for the suspension was to also financially effect the premises and the reasons not valid, after all how can training be embedded fully if the staff are unable to sell alcohol and put their training to the test?'

An appeal was therefore lodged by Kurnia, on behalf of the premises, in the Lincoln Magistrates Court. At the appeal hearing in July 2007, Anthony Clark Solicitors, located in Lincoln, acted for the premises assisted by Kurnia. They argued that NKDC had tried in inflict a financial penalty on the premises and argued that the reasons behind the suspension were not valid.

Evidence was produced at the appeal hearing in the form of letters from Trading Standards confirming that in the time in between the review hearing and the appeal hearing that the premises had been subject to three further test purchase operations and the premises were successful in passing all three, proving further that the training that had been put in place by Kurnia had been successful and was now in fact embedded fully.

At the end of the lengthy hearing the magistrates ruled that they would lift the suspension enabling the premises to continue trading.

After the hearing the owners of the premises said that they were very happy that the episode was now over and very pleased with the sensible result. Michael Kheng from Kurnia commented on that he was also very happy with the result but question once again the unnecessary cost of premises license holders having to pay out to have a decision of a council corrected. With the proposed suggestion of the cost of simply lodging an appeal being set at £400 will only further add to the financial burden and if the application costs are brought in, and the fact that Magistrates are now advised not to award costs, Kheng fears that less people will appeal and councils will start to impose unnecessary conditions.

Kurnia have now been sucessful in all five appeals they have lodged under the Licensing Act 2003.