The Licensing (Premises) Sub-Committee met to consider an application to review the premises licence for Nera (Magazin Romanesc Diana), and decided to revoke the licence. The revocation will take effect after the period for appeal has ended.

Nera (Magazin Romanesc Diana)

The sub-committee considered an application for a review of the premises licence for Nera (Magazin Romanesc Diana), 98 Easton Street, High Wycombe, HP11 1LT. The application for review was made by Kieran O'Connor on behalf of Buckinghamshire and Surrey Trading Standards. The decision was to revoke the premises licence.

The application for review was made following guilty pleas from Cargo Imperial Food Ltd and Traian Zgripcea at Wycombe Magistrates Court on 13 August 2025 for offences relating to the sale of illicit tobacco, the sale of a vape to someone under the age of 18, and forging documents. A fine of £2,212.50 was issued.

The grounds for the review were:

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• Public safety
• The protection of children from harm

In support of the review application, the sub-committee was presented with the following evidence:

• The Chief Officer of Police submitted a representation in support of the review, stating that Thames Valley Police were willing to support local businesses that trade in compliance with national law, but that they could no longer trust this licensee.
• The Licensing Authority submitted a representation in support of the review, noting that the premises licence is held by Cargo Imperial Food Ltd, and that Traian Zgripcea, one of the company directors, is also the designated premises supervisor (DPS). They stated that the information provided by Trading Standards raised serious questions about his suitability to remain as DPS.
• Buckinghamshire and Surrey Trading Standards submitted a civil statement and supporting photos. The statement detailed the history of offences at the premises, including the sale of illicit tobacco, the sale of a vape to an underage volunteer, and the forging of documents. The photos showed the cigarettes taken from the shop, the forged training record and refusal book, and the unlabelled wine in the shop.

The sub-committee considered the Buckinghamshire Council's Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Policy Statement, and noted that the Licensing Authority seeks to encourage the highest standards of management in licensed premises. The sub-committee also noted that where there is a history and pattern of non-compliance associated with the management of the premises, linked to an adverse affect on the promotion of the licensing objectives, the Licensing Authority is unlikely to permit a premises to continue to operate without further restrictions on review, unless there is evidence of significant improvement in management standards.

The sub-committee also considered the national Guidance issued by the Home Office under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, as amended. The guidance states that there is certain criminal activity that may arise in connection with licensed premises which should be treated particularly seriously, including the use of the licensed premises for the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and alcohol. The guidance also states that where reviews arise and the licensing authority determines that the crime prevention objective is being undermined through the premises being used to further crimes, it is expected that revocation of the licence should be seriously considered, even in the first instance.

The sub-committee heard from Mr Oisin Daly of Absolute Licence Solutions Ltd, representing the licence holder, who acknowledged their wrongdoing.

The sub-committee found that there had been a serious breakdown in trust and confidence in the Licence Holder's ability to uphold the licensing objectives, namely prevention of crime and disorder, protection of children from harm and public safety.

The sub-committee did not accept the Designated Premises Supervisor's (DPS) explanation that his actions in respect of the offences relating to illicit tobacco were due to his unfamiliarity with legislation controlling the sale of tobacco, noting his previous conviction in 2019 for selling non-compliant tobacco.

The sub-committee was particularly concerned that the Premises Licence Holder's offending behaviour had continued after the illicit tobacco was discovered, and were alarmed by the breach of the licensing objectives relating to public safety and the protection of children from harm, notably through the sale of a vape to an underage volunteer and the possession of forty two unmarked bottles of liquid which, by their appearance and colouring, would be likely to appeal to children. These bottles when tested were found to contain 12% alcohol and sulphates which is an allergen which should be declared.

The sub-committee were particularly concerned that, in an effort to demonstrate due diligence the Premises Licence Holder had created fraudulent documents, namely a training record and refusals register. This reflected their poor management, dishonest intent and undermined all the licensing objectives. This view was further supported by the Premises Licence Holder's failure to programme the till to flag up vape products as restricted.

The sub-committee considered whether the imposition of enhanced licence conditions would mitigate the concerns raised by the Responsible Authorities, but accepted their views that additional conditions would not adequately address their concerns, because the DPS would remain personally responsible for the sale of alcohol, and the Sub-Committee had no faith that he would promote the licensing objectives.

The sub-committee further considered whether to remove the DPS, as an appropriate alternative, but noted that the DPS is the sole Director and person with significant control of the Cargo Imperial Food Ltd and therefore would continue to exert influence over any other person appointed as DPS in the future. The Sub-Committee therefore did not consider this option to be a sufficient remedy.

The sub-committee also took into account the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, namely:

• Article 6 the right to a fair hearing
• Article 8 respect for private and family life
• Article 1, First Protocol peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

The sub-committee concluded that they had been left with no alternative but to revoke the premises licence to uphold the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the protection of children from harm.

The licence holder has the right to appeal this decision within 21 days to the Clerk to the Justices, High Wycombe Magistrates' Court, Milton Keynes Magistrates' Court and Family Hearing Centre.