Agenda and minutes

The Chairman introduced Members of the Sub-Committee and welcomed everyone to the hearing.

The Licensing Officer outlined the purpose of the hearing to consider a Personal License Application of Mr Kokulathas. He informed the Committee that an objection notice had been received from the Police, as the applicant had a conviction from 2010 for sale of alcohol to a person under the age of 18. An objection notice had also been received from Trading Standards. The Licensing Officer then explained the procedure of the hearing.

Application for a Personal License

Mr Birch (Licensing Consultant representing the applicant) explained that there was no dispute that Mr Kokulathas had been convicted of selling alcohol to a person under the age of 18 in 2010, but stated that Mr Kokulathas was not the person who had sold the alcohol; he had been convicted in his capacity as the premises license holder. He further stated that there had been no subterfuge with regards to the incorrect order of names appearing on documents as the Tamil custom involved exchanging the first and surname around, an error made by Mr Birch. It was noted that in November 2010 an application had been granted for a premises license and whilst it had been contested, no objection notice had been received from the Police. Mr Birch explained that Mr Kokulathas held a premises license holder for two premises in Northampton, his brother of whom was the Designated Premises Supervisor. The Committee were informed that a refusal of the Personal License would not alter his capability to sell alcohol, as he was already a License Holder.

The Solicitor asked the Police if there had been a time delay between the conviction and the appearance on the CRB. Pc Murphy explained that the system used in 2010 was different to the current system but could not confirm if there had been a delay. Pc Murphy also confirmed that the applicant (Mr Kokulathas) was not the person who had made the sale, but he had been prosecuted as the Premises License Holder.

Representation by Objectors

Pc Murphy explained that whilst Mr Kokulathas had not technically been responsible for the sale of alcohol to an under 18, he had been convicted as the responsible person being the Designated Premises Supervisor. He commented that the offence was relevant under the Licensing Act 2003 and that granting the application could undermine the Licensing Objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.

Ms Mason confirmed Trading Standards – a responsible authority, had submitted an objection notice.

Summing up by the Applicant

Mr Birch stated that under the rehabilitation of offenders, Mr Kokulathas would retain his conviction. He commented that Mr Kokulathas had shown responsibility by applying for the Personal License, even though he would be able to continue in his existing role without one.

Summing up by the Objector(s)

Pc Murphy summarised by stating that due to the recentness of the offence he felt that there was no other option other than to object to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.