The Sub-Committee is asked to determine Khalifa Superstore’s application, taking into account the details in the report and any representations made at this Sub-Committee meeting.

Mohammed Ali (Applicant) and Russel Sharland (Trading Standard Responsible Authority) joined the meeting.

The Chair welcomed all attendees. The Sub-Committee and officers introduced themselves.

The Chair outlined the procedure for the hearing.

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer presented the report, noting the requirement for the Sub-Committee to determine an application submitted by Khalifa Super Store Ltd for a New Premises Licence in respect of Khalifa Super Store, 122 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JE

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer summarised the report, stating that applicant applied for the following:

• Late Night Refreshment: Sunday to Saturday: 23:00 hours to 03:00 hour

The Sub-Committee understood that a copy of the application could be found in appendix one, with details of both the application and the steps that the applicant intended to take to promote licensing objectives.

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer explained that during the consultation period, Thames Valley Police (TVP) liaised with the Applicant due to concerns with the terminal hour and shortcomings within the Applicant’s operating schedule. TVP and the Applicant agreed on additional conditions to be added to any licence granted and a reduction of hours for licensable activities. The hours were amended to:

• Late Night Refreshment: Sunday to Saturday: 23:00 hours to 01:00 hours

A copy of the correspondence between TVP and the applicant, which included confirmation and agreement of the amended hours and additional conditions, could be found at appendix two.

A valid representation had been received from a Responsible Authority, Trading Standards, due to concerns in relation to the licensing objectives; crime and disorder and protection of children from harm, as detailed in the table below. A copy of the representation could be found at appendix three.

A map detailing the applicant’s premises, and the surrounding area was enclosed in appendix four.

The Sub-Committee were reminded of its responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act to consider the fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the rights of local residents, and to ensure that any decision taken is necessary and proportionate to the objectives being pursued. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer emphasised that any decision taken must promote the licensing objectives and provided procedural advice regarding the Sub-Committee’s considerations.

The Sub-Committee were also reminded that they must make one of the following decisions which they consider to be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives:

• To grant the variation in accordance with the application.
• To modify the conditions of the operating schedule by altering or omitting or adding to them.
• To exclude or restrict a licensable activity from the scope of the licence
• Reject the whole of the application

The Sub-Committee were reminded that they may grant the licence subject to different conditions for different parts of the premises or the different licensable activities.

The Chair welcomed the Panel to ask questions; no questions were raised.

The Chair invited the Applicant to present to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ali explained that the only objection to the application came from Trading Standards and related to a period before the new owners took place on 1 April. He clarified that he had no involvement with the products or the supermarket, and his role was limited to catering, and he was asked to apply for the license. He stated that the food section occupied 25% of the premises. Mr Ali noted that TVP had agreed to a 1am closing time instead of 3am, hence the amended application.

The Chair invited questions from the Sub-Committee.

Councillor Ottino asked about the ownership. Mr Ali stated the current owner was Mr Hussain Aziz, who was in Iraq and unable to attend due to a lack of flights. He did not know the previous owner. Mr Ali confirmed he was retired and ran a food business. Councillor Ottino further asked if the business had changed to which Mr Ali responded the shop remained 75% supermarket and 25% food.

Councillor Rehman asked if the premises were still operating the same way under new ownership. Mr Ali confirmed they were and said Mr Aziz had taken over and continued operations. When asked about is role, Mr Ali clarified he was listed as the manager only for the application, acting as an agent, not for the shop itself.

There were concerns raised about ongoing court cases and whether the premises were still attracting problematic activity. Mr Ali said he knew Mr Aziz well and confirmed the food and shop sections were now physically separated. He considered them two separate businesses.

The Chair asked when the hot food section started and whether it had a license. Mr Ali said it began when Mr Aziz took over and admitted the food section operated past 11pm without a late-night license. He stated they intended to close at 11pm until they heard from licensing officers.

When asked about who managed the food section, Mr Ali said there was no designated manage and he wasn’t involved in daily operations.

The Senior Licensing Officer asked how long Mr Aziz had been away; Mr Ali said four weeks. The Licensing Officer asked that on 15 May, Mr Aziz was informed of the 1am terminal hour condition Mr Ali confirmed he was aware of the changed terminal hour. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer stated despite being warned via letters dated 24 March and 21 April, the premises operated without a required license, making the activity technically illegal. Mr Ali said he wasn’t aware of any trading beyond 23:00 hours following these visits but could be possible.

When questioned about staff documentation and management responsibility, Mr Ali said if the license was granted, conditions would be provided in writing, and it would be up to those involved to comply.

The Chair asked if Mr Azizowned any other businesses in Oxford and Mr Ali confirmed this was the only one.

The Chair invited the Trading Standards Responsible Authority to present.

Mr Sharland explained that Trading Standards objected to the application due to evidence linking the applicant to the sale of illegal vapes and smuggled tobacco. He emphasised that although ownership had changed, Khalifa Superstore Limited remained the same legal entity. The objection was based on continued activities aligned with criminal objectives. Mr Sharland stated a criminal investigation had resulted in guilty pleas from a former director, while the case against the company itself had been adjourned due to the owner’s absence from the country. The business had evaded taxes through smuggled tobacco sales, which undercut legal prices and encouraged continued smoking. Vulnerable customers were particularly affected by the availability of cheaper, illegal products.

Mr Sharland stated that on 1 May of the previous year, illegal vapes were found in the store. Staff on site refused to cooperate and hidden products were discovered behind a magnetically sealed panel smuggled polish cigarettes, nicotine pouches lacking English safety instructions, and other unsafe products were found behind the counter. These items posed serious health risks and lacked age restrictions. The individuals involved were interviewed under caution and faced prosecution. Mr Sharland noted that shortly after the store was sold, a further investigation took place on 21 January this year and staff again refused to cooperate. Officers found 161 nicotine pouches and tobacco products displayed openly and another hidden compartment was discovered, containing large amounts of cash. On 21 February and 16 March, Trading Standards conducted test purchases and Illegal vapes were sold both times by the same staff member and the money went directly into the stores till. Another hidden compartment was found behind an electromagnet.

Mr Sharland summarised by stating that Khalifa Superstore claimed the sale of the business took place on 20 March, but a seizure had already occurred on 16 March. Just three business days later, a sale involving a legal document had allegedly been finalised. When the previous owner was interviewed, he claimed no sale had yet been completed and that he had never met the new buyer Mr Hussain, despite records showing they exchanged a signed agreement. Mr Sharland stated that a license is a privilege, not a right and Khalifa Superstore Limited should not be granted one.

The Chair asked whether the current owner was the sole owner and the Mr Sharland confirmed this was the case. When asked how authorities would be notified of the owners return to the UK, it was confirmed that legal teams would communicate directly.

The Chair invited the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer, the Applicant and Trading Standards Responsible Authority to make any final comments

Mr Ali stated that he had advised the owners to keep proper documentation but noted that they preferred informal agreements. When asked about the ownership of the premises, he said the land had two different landlords. He admitted he had initially thought the application was straightforward, but it had escalated into a matter involving criminal activity. 

Mr Sharland concluded by reiterating that holding a license is a privilege, and that Khalifa Superstore Limited should not be granted that privilege.

Mr Ali, Mr Sharland, the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer and the Licensing Compliance Officer left the meeting to allow the Sub-Committee to reach a decision.

The Sub-Committee deliberated and considered: 

• The likelihood of criminality at the premises as presented by Trading Standards and although the sub-committee had no powers to judge the criminality (this would be for the Courts) they had a duty to ensure the licensing objectives were promoted and upheld.
• That it is for the sub-committee to determine whether the alleged crimes affected the promotion of prevention of crime and disorder.
• That Mr Ali was somewhat removed from the running of the business and that the sub-committee were not persuaded that the licence objectives would be up-held by the new owners of the premises who had not attended.

Mr Ali, Mr Sharland, the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer and the Licensing Compliance Officer rejoined the meeting to hear the Sub-Committee’s decision.

The Sub-Committee resolved to: 

• Refuse the application. The Panel had no confidence that Khalifa Superstores would uphold the licensing objectives. Due to ongoing criminal proceedings, the Panel placed significant weight on the objection from the Trading Standards, and they were not persuaded by representations from Mr Ali that Khalifa Superstore would uphold the licensing objectives. The Panel reiterated that holding a license is a privilege, not a right.

The Chair notified the Applicant that they would have 21 days to appeal the decision made during the hearing via the Magistrates Court from the date of receiving the decision notice.

Mr Ali and Mr Sharland thanked the Sub-Committee and left the meeting.