A Wisbech café boss faces a licensing hearing after admitting to police he bought a bottle of vodka for £10 from someone who it later transpired had used a stolen bank card to buy it for £22.99 from somewhere else.
The incident happed on May 10 and what happened the following day when police attended the café forms a key part of the evidence to be discussed when Constantino Almeida appears before a licensing subcommittee on September 11.
Mr Almeida runs Delicious Snack Bar at 50 Hill Street, Wisbech, and a review of his premises licence has been called for by Cambridgeshire police.
Fenland Council, which has convened the licensing subcommittee, says it was “triggered in response to intelligence received and subsequent inspection at the location”.
The police allege that on May 10 Mr Almeida bought the vodka having “accepted the offender’s offer, purchasing the bottle before placing it on the back shelf behind the bar”.
Body cam footage of Mr Almeida admitting to PC Josh Yeomans on May 11 that he bought the vodka will be shown to the subcommittee but no CCTV footage of the events of the day before were available.
“Whilst at the premises PC Yeomans requests a copy of the CCTV footage of the incident, it is then established that Mr Almeida does not know to operate the system,” says a report to the committee.
On June 4 PC Paul Hawkins and FDC licensing officer Andy Fox return to the café and ask for the CCTV of May 10.
Mr Almeida “advised he was unable to operate the system and called a friend, who attended, and it was established that the footage could not be played back and that nothing appeared to be store on the hard drive”.
PC Hawkins seized the CENOS CCTV system including power cable which was later checked by the police forensic imaging unit.
“And it has been established the hard drive was completely blank and contained no retrievable data,” says the report which puts Mr Almedia in breach of his licence which requires him to maintain “a comprehensive digital colour CCTV system”.
The subcommittee will hear that following the vodka incident on May 11 and a visit by officers on June 4 when Mr Almeida failed to provide CCTV footage, he was issued with a notice to cease selling alcohol “until all conditions were met”.
Mr Almedia is alleged to have ignored the order and on June 12 police received “intel from a 3rd party that the premises was continuing to sell alcohol on the premises by decanting products into coffee cups”.
No evidence of that was ever found and a further visit by licensing officer 8 days later -and with CCTV back up and running – the prohibition order was removed.
The later inspection had found Mr Almeida had installed a new CCTV system which was “fully operational with instructions in Portuguese and English and all the previous conditions breaches had been resolved”.
However, one of the arguments put forward by police is that by receiving and selling stolen goods, Mr Almeida has breached his licensing conditions.
“Delicious Snack Bar even has a condition on the licence to discourage the potential of handling goods, which the licence holder admits to ignoring,” says Cambridgeshire police.
They believe he has “undermined the licensing objective of crime and disorder.
“Cambridgeshire Constabulary respectfully requests that consideration be given to suspension of the premises licence and the change of Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) to ensure future compliance.
“Positive action by the committee will also discourage other operators from committing similar offences”.
The committee will have a variety of options open to them including a warning, modifying the terms of the licence, removal of the DPS (which is also Mr Almedia), suspending or revoking his licence, or to take no further action.
A curious twist to the case is revealed in the reports going before the committee which include a letter from another licensee in the town.
He will tell the committee his wallet and debit cards were stolen from his premises and used to buy the vodka “then sold at a discount of Delicious Snack Bar”.
The unnamed licensee (his name is redacted in public papers) make a series of other and unsubstantiated allegations which the committee will be advised by their legal officers if they are able to consider.
