Brawl with customer costs shop its alcohol license

A police officer claimed a shop owner and his employee went to a customer’s house with a metal pole and a wooden bat following a row in a statement submitted to a council committee ahead of a review of a store’s alcohol licence.

Town hall chiefs in Tameside have stripped the Multisaver convenience store in Dukinfield of its booze licence following an incident in which they said staff ‘took the law into their own hands’.

The result of the hearing, which took place in full behind closed doors on 13 August, does not prohibit the shop from staying open and selling other items.

Council bosses said it was not the responsibility of the licensing panel to ‘determine any person’s guilt or innocence in relation to charges that may be progressed by the Crown Prosecution Service’ (CPS).

Premises licence holder Hamza Ali and employee Mohammed Imran Hussain are named in the statement, made publicly available by Tameside council ahead of the hearing.

Both men were arrested and released under investigation.

The crime(s) the men were suspected of committing upon their arrest were not detailed in the statement.

It follows an incident on April 19 involving two members of staff from the off-licence on Chapel Street, according to a police officer’s witness statement filed as part of the council’s licensing panel proceedings.

According to the statement, penned by PC Martin Thorley, £2,000-worth of damage was caused at a customer’s house.

PC Thorley claimed in the statement an imitation hand gun was found in the store room of the convenience store. PC Thorley alleged the fake weapon was brandished during the incident.

Mr Ali told the Manchester Evening News ahead of the outcome of the hearing his actions were in the ‘heat of the moment’ after Mr Hussain was allegedly assaulted by a customer who he said had been previously banned from the store.

He said they went to ‘confront him’.

In his statement, PC Thorley said the incident was sparked following a row over customer’s debit card being declined. PC Thorley said the woman and her partner returned to question a shopkeeper about it having been ‘cloned’ in the store.

The officer said that led to an altercation between the customer’s partner and the shopkeeper, who PC Thorley identified as Mr Hussain. PC Thorley said Mr Hussain was allegedly headbutted by the customer’s partner.

The PC’s statement says that as the man and woman left, Mr Hussain grabbed a ‘pick axe handle’ from behind the counter. In the statement, he is alleged to have shouted ‘threatening abuse’ towards the pair.

According to PC Thorley, later that day, the couple were sitting in their garden when they heard ‘loud banging’ at the front door.

PC Thorley said they recognised a man outside as Mr Hussain ‘stood holding what she believed to be a handgun in his two hands, aiming it at the door and shouting threats demanding the door is opened’.

“The customer has seen another male, believed to be the DPS for Multisaver, Hamza Ali, stood behind Hussain waving what was believed to be a bat around in the air,” the PC’s statement reads.

“Glass has then been heard to smash and a metal bar was seen poking through the small window in the door.

“At the same time there was a smash from the living and room and then everything went quiet.”

The PC’s statement states there were ‘several large dents’ in the front door – and the window in the door had been smashed, as had the living room window.

According to the statement, CCTV footage from the Multisaver store shows Mr Hussain and Mr Ali leaving with a metal bar and a pick axe handle at 2.17pm and returning at 2.35pm.

The statement says Mr Hussain denied possessing a black and silver imitation firearm, which was found in the store room of the shop – and said he had never touched the gun before and did not know who it belonged to.

“I believe that from the information I have been provided with together with evidence which I have seen from CCTV, is conclusive evidence which undermines the licensing objectives,” PC Thorley concludes in his statement.

“GMP are awaiting a response from the CPS with regard to a charging decision in relation to these matters.”

The representation from the council’s regulatory compliance officer Brad Byrne states: “The licensing authority has concerns over the behaviour of the licence holder and DPS at this premise, putting the safety of the public at risk.”

More than 30 letters of support for Mr Ali and the business have been lodged with the council, town hall papers said.

Mr Ali said petitions had been sent to the licensing department from more than 100 customers in support of the store.

He told the M.E.N. his twin brother works at the shop, as well as their father, and they had both been ‘intimidated’ by the customer’s partner in the past who, he said, was banned for his ‘aggressive and violent behaviour’.

“On this particular day, I received a phone call from our employee Mr Hussain who told me that he had been assaulted and bleeding heavily from the nose,” Mr Ali said.

“When I saw the CCTV footage, I felt that I should confront him and tell him never to come to the shop because for the fear of harm to my brother and father. It might have been a mistake to go and try to tell him off.

“I did take a stick with me for my own protection. I had no intention of physically harming him, rather my intention was to try to find a solution to keep my family safe.

“In hindsight, I should have phoned the police first, however in the heat of the moment it happened. And am sure many people who are family orientated would do something similar.

“I went outside his house and called him, however he didn’t come out. So I kicked his door with anger and came back.

“My uncle who happened to arrive at the shop called the police and the police saw the CCTV footage. The police arrested us because they said we should have not gone to confront him.”

Announcing the result of the hearing on 13 August, panel chair councillor David Sweeton said members had concluded that the incident at the house ‘in retaliation to the earlier incident’ at the shop appeared to be an ‘isolated incident insofar as the licence holder’s conduct is concerned’.

“It is not the panel’s responsibility to determine any person’s innocence or guilt in relation to any charges that may be progressed by the Crown Prosecution Service but to consider the impact of the incident on the promotion of the licensing objectives,” he said.

“In relation to the incident at the house, the licence holder and his member of staff took the law into their own hands whereas they should have reported the 12.05 incident to the police and allowed the police to investigate and to take appropriate steps.

“The panel has no confidence in the license holder’s ability to promote the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objectives.

“Accordingly the panel concluded that the step that it considers appropriate to promote the licensing objectives is the revocation of the premises licence.”

While the evidence heard by the council was sufficient for members to revoke the store’s alcohol licence, it does not mean it will be sufficient for the men to be charged and/or convicted of the crime(s) on supsicion of which they were arrested.