Ms Tamutyte, of Hallgate, Moulton, runs Global Food in Winsover Road. She believes she could demonstrate a correct approach to satisfying the licensing objectives. But officers from the alcohol licensing team say that the fact they have discovered she was joint-owner during a previous unlawful period of operation and that she still lives with her partner (the other joint-owner at the time), Marius Legavicius, means that any suggestion she can run the premises properly “cannot be taken seriously”.
A previous premises licence for Global Food was revoked in September 2015 after Mr Legavicius was found responsible for selling smuggled goods (foreign labelled cigarettes) and failing to comply with conditions of the licence.
Police said in evidence presented to the hearing at South Holland District Council on January 25: “Ms Tamutyte is still in a relationship with Mr Legavicius – they live at the same premises, with their two children. This ultimately means that any financial benefits derived from Global Foods will be directly benefiting her family, including Mr Legavicius.”
Ms Tamutyte tried to relicense the premises herself in March last year, but this was rejected by the council.
Police said in their evidence: “On the day of the hearing, Ms Tamutyte claimed the previous problems were the responsibility of her partner (Mr Legavicius) and that she would represent a clean slate and run the premises properly.
“Part of her evidence was her saying that she had not signed the refusals register, thereby purporting that she was not at the premises during the period they were not being run lawfully.
“She then had to change this evidence, having been challenged by the attending police officers and the panel [of district councillors representing the licensing authority}, to say “she had signed false entries under the instruction of her partner.
“This ‘fatally undermined’ her credibility as an applicant.”
They added: “It is Lincolnshire Police’s submission that there has been no change in the ownership of the premises, and no change in this new licence application from the previously-refused one.
“Indeed, the newly-discovered fact Ms Tamutyte was joint-owner of the business when the smuggled cigarettes were sold on November 16 2015 make this application even weaker.”
“At a previous hearing on May 20, 2016 this applicant argued that she would represent a clean slate; however, it is accepted that she lied about entries on the refusal register. The applicant asks for a further chance and claims to have learned her lesson.
“There is good evidence to suggest the applicant was involved in running the business prior to the test purchase of illegal cigarettes. Indeed, the applicant, when answering questions, conceded that she, on a few occasions, had sold cigarettes.
“In light of the poor history of these premises and the proposal that it would remain under the management of one of the people who had allowed unlawful activity to take place the only step which would be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives is to refuse the application.
“There are no conditions that would alleviate the concerns the panel have, particularly with regard to the prevention of crime and disorder.”
