Brighton Shop Boss Says He'll Appeal After Councillors Revoke Drinks Licence

Councillors have revoked the premises licence for a convenience store in Brighton over concerns that the owner bought stolen alcohol from street drinkers.

But the owner, Melad Sitt, 47, denied the claim and said that he intended to appeal to Brighton Magistrates’ Court to have the councillors’ ruling overturned.

They were shown security camera footage — in secret — by Sussex Police and said that it showed a dodgy transaction at Churchill’s Supermarket, in Air Street.

And they said that it followed other breaches of licensing rules, leaving them with no confidence in Mr Sitt’s “management of the premises or his ability to behave responsibly in the future”.

They reached their verdict at a Brighton and Hove City Council licensing panel, which was called to review the premises and held “virtually” because of the coronavirus restrictions around social distancing.

Mr Sitt’s representative, Trevor Scoble, told the panel that Sussex Police had produced no evidence that the alcohol was stolen.

And more than half a dozen people sent glowing character references to the council when it emerged that Mr Sitt’s licence was at risk of being revoked.

In a letter to Mr Sitt the panel said that the store was in:

“an area where the council, supported by evidence from the police, consider that the concentration of licensed premises is causing problems of crime and disorder and public nuisance.

“The area around and including the Churchill Supermarket is known to police for street drinking issues.”

The panel said that the review had been brought by Sussex Police “on the basis of the ‘prevention of crime and disorder’ licensing objective”.

The panel added:

“Representations supporting the review have been made by trading standards and the licensing authority (the council).

“The application and supporting evidence, notably the CCTV footage, supplied by the police describes an incident at the shop on (Sunday) 7 June 2020 when a male entered the store just after midday, approached Mr Sitt and produced from his rucksack and carrier bag 10 bottles of wine — three red and seven white — and placed them in a trolley.

“Mr Sitt then took a bank note from his pocket and handed it to the male who then left the store.

“The wine was then placed on a shelf in the store along with other wine for sale.

“The interaction lasted approximately 90 seconds.

“The CCTV also clearly shows that a few minutes later, alcohol was sold to a customer, despite the fact the alcohol licence for the premises was suspended, due to no payment having been made for the annual fee.

“The police contend that the interaction between Mr Sitt and the man with the 10 bottles of wine shows that the premises are being used to offload stolen alcohol which in turn is linked to anti-social behaviour in the area.

“The police account of the incident was not contested by the licence holder, only their interpretation that it shows that the premises are being used to offload stolen alcohol.”

The panel also said:

“In order not to prejudice an ongoing police investigation, and to protect the identities of third parties, we viewed the CCTV footage in closed session.

“Viewing the CCTV, we find it barely credible that the 90-second exchange between Mr Sitt and the witness was long enough to deal with both the request for safe keeping of the wine and for £20 for a taxi to take the witness’ partner away as Mr Sitt would have us believe.

“In our view, there was no meaningful discussion and the transaction appeared to be a sale, with no questions asked.”

Mr Sitt had given a number of differing accounts, the panel said, adding:

“With so many versions of how the wine came to be in the supermarket, Mr Sitt has destroyed his own credibility.

“We cannot be reassured that it was sourced legitimately.

“The submission from the police that it was stolen appears on the information available to us to be the most credible explanation.

“The supporting police evidence also references other breaches of licence conditions, namely, inadequate ‘Challenge 25’ signage, inability to produce training records on request – and refusals book not signed by the licence holder. These breaches were not disputed at the hearing.

“Trading standards supported the review application. Their representation outlines a number of breaches of trading standards enforced legislation since December 2015.

“In that month a trading standards officer had found a bottle of Famous Grouse (whisky) with damage to the neck surround, which is indicative of the security cap being removed without the correct tool.

“In April 2018 the same officer found a 50cl bottle of Vodka on sale with no duty stamp. This suggested that the bottle had been smuggled.

“The officer’s statement was not challenged.

“We are also concerned about the authenticity of the training records.

“Mr Sitt was unable to produce them when requested by the police on (Monday) 8 June, even though they are meant to be available to the police upon request.

“When the records were finally produced, they indicated that training had taken place at times when Mr Sitt had advised that no members of staff were working at the store.

“We share the police view that the records were probably fabricated.

“Honesty is an essential quality in a licence holder. We are not satisfied that Mr Sitt has been entirely honest in his explanations to us, the police or trading standards.

“According to the statutory guidance, our role when determining a review brought on the basis of the ‘crime and disorder’ objective is not to establish the guilt or innocence of any individual but to ensure the promotion of the crime prevention objective.

“Taking all the evidence into account, the panel is not satisfied that Churchill’s Supermarket is being run in such a way as to promote the ‘prevention of crime and disorder’ licensing objective.

“There have been breaches of the licence, the unlawful sale of alcohol while the licence was suspended and the probable purchase for sale of stolen alcohol.

“In the five years in which he has held this licence, the premises licence holder has had issues with compliance with regulatory requirements.

“In the last few months, his regard for the law and the licensing objectives has decreased.

“The panel have no confidence in his management of the premises or his ability to behave responsibly in the future.

“The panel consider therefore that the only appropriate action in this case is revocation of the licence.”

If Mr Sitt lodges his appeal, he will keep his licence at least until the case has been heard in court.