Newbury licensee admits underage alcohol sale

But the girl was a volunteer for West Berkshire Council’s trading standards team, and the operation was a sting, the court was told on Thursday, October 23.
When confronted with evidence that he had sold her a bottle of the ‘alcopop’ Blue WKD, Umangbhai Chandrakantbhai Patel, owner of Kushi News in Pound Street, said: “I thought she was 23 or 24.”
Alex Kirk, prosecuting on behalf of the council, said: “The girl, with her mother’s permission, undertook test purchases on behalf of trading standards officers. In Kushi News, this defendant was behind the till.
“She selected the alcohol and the defendant was serving behind the till. He didn’t ask her age or as to see her proof of age I.D. She paid and left the shop, while the bottle was put in an evidence bag.”
Mr Kirk said the shop states that it operates a “Challenge 21” policy, whereby anyone who appears to be younger is asked to prove they are aged 18 or over.
He added: “The defendant is the owner and he said, when interviewed under caution: ‘I thought she was 23 or 24.’”
Mr Patel had undergone training in relation to underage alcohol sales and routinely told his staff about age restrictions but nevertheless, said Mr Kirk, “he made no attempt to establish her age, despite the fact he is the owner and the designated superviser.”
Four other, similar premises were subjected to similar tests during the operation, magistrates were told, but in each of these cases staff refused to sell alcohol to the girl.
The 38-year-old, of Westwood Road, Newbury, admitted selling alcohol to a person aged under 18 years on January 23 this year.
Representing himself, Mr Patel said: “After 10 years in the business, this is the first mistake and I apologise for it. She looked 23 or 24 and this time I made a mistake - that’s it.”
Presiding magistrate Ian Martin said: “We note that this is the first time in 10 years. However, if you believe young girls like that look 23 or 24 you need to be asking for a lot more information.”
Mr Patel was fined £265 with a statutory surcharge of £26 and ordered to pay £273.40 towards the council’s costs.
Mr Martin concluded: “Please make sure that focuses your mind.”