FEENEY v PF PAISLEY

[1] In this case the appellant, a shop owner, was convicted of allowing alcohol to be sold to a young person contrary to section 103 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 and, allowing alcohol to be sold by a young person contrary to section 107 of the 2005 Act. The offences arose out the sale of a pack of Stella Artois cider by the appellant’s 16‑year‑old assistant LG to an underage “authorised test purchaser” JH aged 16.

[2] In the course of the evidence, it emerged that LG had been told by the appellant that if a customer wanted to purchase alcohol or cigarettes she should ask for identification for proof of age, and should go and get the appellant. She had also been told not to sell alcohol to persons if they were under 21. There was also evidence that when alcohol was scanned through the cash desk, two buttons became operational asking about the purchaser’s age and proof of age.

[3] LG in evidence acknowledged all of these instructions. She explained that she had received these instructions, that she knew what she should do, and that she knew that she should go and get the appellant. However, on this occasion, she looked at the queue and pressed the “yes” button, thus putting the sale through.

[4] There was no evidence that this sort of situation had arisen before. The appellant (who was representing himself) gave evidence about the checking system he had put in place, the instructions which he had given his staff (including LG) and the fact that the incident was an isolated one.

[6] The advocate depute drew our attention to Epic Group Scotland v Shanks 2014 SCCR 230 (a case concerning a nightclub). He sought to distinguish that case by pointing out that in the present case one could say that there had been a failure in training, a failure in supervision and generally a systemic failure. However in our view, in relation to an off‑licence shop such as appellant’s, it has not been established that there was some failure in training or in supervision.