Newsagent fined for selling booze to boy

Newsagent fined for selling booze to boy

Newsagent fined for selling booze to boy

First published in News by

A STRUGGLING newsagent has been ordered to pay more than £1,600 after being caught selling alcohol to a child.

Vijay Wara, 53, admitted selling a bottle of Budweiser to a 16- year-old at Rochford News Centre, in West Street, when he appeared at Southend Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday.

The boy was acting on behalf of Essex Trading Standards when he entered the store on April 6, after numerous reports over two years that Wara was selling alcohol to minors.

Richard Power, representing Trading Standards, told the court Wara had signed up to the “Challenge 25” programme in 2011, meaning he was volunteering to ask anyone who looked under the age of 25 for identification.

But, after receiving further reports of minors buying alcohol at the shop, officers attended again.

Mr Power said: “Another visit was made on April 4 after reports a 14-year-old girl returned home very drunk.

“Her parents were advised vodka had been purchased from the premises and Mr Wara was advised information had been received and of the precautions he should take. He was also told a test purchase would take place.”

Wara, who has run convenience stores in Dagenham and Rochford for 20 years, denied selling alcohol to a minor before April 6.

He told the court he thought he was serving the boy a can of Coke because of an illness brought on by the stress of his business suffering since Sainsbury’s Local opened nearby.

He said: “I had been diagnosed with a very bad fever and ended up in hospital for four weeks.

“This turned out to be an infection of the spine and one of the problems is you sometimes can’t see what it is – you begin to imagine things. The doctor called it meningitis-like symptoms.”

Chairman Martin Hampson said the bench took Wara’s problems into account and, rather than revoking or suspending his licence, fined him £350 and ordered him to pay a victim surcharge of £35 and costs of £1,233.

He added: “You have a moral responsibility towards children who come into your shop.”

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:22am Fri 24 Jan 14

Been there got the T shirt says...

Glad to see he wasn't closed down, gives him time to suffer he impending slow death of hat business
Glad to see he wasn't closed down, gives him time to suffer he impending slow death of hat business Been there got the T shirt
  • Score: 6

7:27am Fri 24 Jan 14

leighman says...

Well, there you have it, 'Sainsbury’s' is bad for your health! Honestly some of these solicitors must struggle not to laugh when they present their clients defence. It seems with virtually every case brought to court that there is some kind of medical reason why the defendant is in the dock. REVOKE HIS LICENCE!!!
Well, there you have it, 'Sainsbury’s' is bad for your health! Honestly some of these solicitors must struggle not to laugh when they present their clients defence. It seems with virtually every case brought to court that there is some kind of medical reason why the defendant is in the dock. REVOKE HIS LICENCE!!! leighman
  • Score: 16

7:47am Fri 24 Jan 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

ha £1600...that will hurt him real real bad.
ha £1600...that will hurt him real real bad. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 4

8:44am Fri 24 Jan 14

Nebs says...

He thought he was selling a bottle of coke when it was actually a bottle of budweiser. I wonder if he charged the price for coke, as that is what he thought the boy was buying.
He thought he was selling a bottle of coke when it was actually a bottle of budweiser. I wonder if he charged the price for coke, as that is what he thought the boy was buying. Nebs
  • Score: 8

9:35am Fri 24 Jan 14

robb789 says...

I've been into this shop recently and apart from a couple of Mars Bars, booze was the only thing he really stocked.
I've been into this shop recently and apart from a couple of Mars Bars, booze was the only thing he really stocked. robb789
  • Score: 17

9:42am Fri 24 Jan 14

supermadmax says...

I felt sorry for him at the start, but wtf ?? "He told the court he thought he was serving the boy a can of Coke because of an illness brought on by the stress of his business suffering since Sainsbury’s Local opened nearby"
I felt sorry for him at the start, but wtf ?? "He told the court he thought he was serving the boy a can of Coke because of an illness brought on by the stress of his business suffering since Sainsbury’s Local opened nearby" supermadmax
  • Score: 15

10:00am Fri 24 Jan 14

scrounger‎ says...

Agent Provocateur at work.
Agent Provocateur at work. scrounger‎
  • Score: 2

10:01am Fri 24 Jan 14

BillericayAdam says...

How is this not entrapment by the Police?
How is this not entrapment by the Police? BillericayAdam
  • Score: -9

10:02am Fri 24 Jan 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

and whats more he has been doing it for 2 years...and Trading standards knew about it..!! and he should have got an extra fine for all the flannel he thought up to worm his way out of it.
and whats more he has been doing it for 2 years...and Trading standards knew about it..!! and he should have got an extra fine for all the flannel he thought up to worm his way out of it. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 11

10:04am Fri 24 Jan 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

BillericayAdam wrote:
How is this not entrapment by the Police?
Who cares,The more the better...car thief's, Burglars, Shopfitters etc
[quote][p][bold]BillericayAdam[/bold] wrote: How is this not entrapment by the Police?[/p][/quote]Who cares,The more the better...car thief's, Burglars, Shopfitters etc DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 3

10:11am Fri 24 Jan 14

Chris Flunk says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
BillericayAdam wrote:
How is this not entrapment by the Police?
Who cares,The more the better...car thief's, Burglars, Shopfitters etc
Shopfitters? What have you got against shopfitters? Their charges may be a bit over the top sometimes but it's hardly criminal (also, it's thieves not thief's btw).
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BillericayAdam[/bold] wrote: How is this not entrapment by the Police?[/p][/quote]Who cares,The more the better...car thief's, Burglars, Shopfitters etc[/p][/quote]Shopfitters? What have you got against shopfitters? Their charges may be a bit over the top sometimes but it's hardly criminal (also, it's thieves not thief's btw). Chris Flunk
  • Score: 11

10:45am Fri 24 Jan 14

Been there got the T shirt says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
ha £1600...that will hurt him real real bad.
Fantastic news,soon to be one less corner shop, in the vill
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: ha £1600...that will hurt him real real bad.[/p][/quote]Fantastic news,soon to be one less corner shop, in the vill Been there got the T shirt
  • Score: 6

10:47am Fri 24 Jan 14

Howard Cháse says...

scrounger‎ wrote:
Agent Provocateur at work.
Is he selling saucy lingerie too then?
[quote][p][bold]scrounger‎[/bold] wrote: Agent Provocateur at work.[/p][/quote]Is he selling saucy lingerie too then? Howard Cháse
  • Score: 3

12:15pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Ian P says...

BillericayAdam wrote:
How is this not entrapment by the Police?
If you read the article properly you will seen that "The boy was acting on behalf of Essex Trading Standards when he entered the store on April 6". So how can it be Police entrapment?
[quote][p][bold]BillericayAdam[/bold] wrote: How is this not entrapment by the Police?[/p][/quote]If you read the article properly you will seen that "The boy was acting on behalf of Essex Trading Standards when he entered the store on April 6". So how can it be Police entrapment? Ian P
  • Score: 6

12:30pm Fri 24 Jan 14

ColonelSpiffSpaff says...

BillericayAdam wrote:
How is this not entrapment by the Police?
Because A) it wasnt the police and B) he could have said 'no' like its his job to
[quote][p][bold]BillericayAdam[/bold] wrote: How is this not entrapment by the Police?[/p][/quote]Because A) it wasnt the police and B) he could have said 'no' like its his job to ColonelSpiffSpaff
  • Score: 5

1:29pm Fri 24 Jan 14

MilesBond says...

His only regret is he caught!
His only regret is he caught! MilesBond
  • Score: 6

1:30pm Fri 24 Jan 14

abd123 says...

Test purchasing of alcohol is specifically allowed by law so the young person does not commit an offence and trading standards do not incite an offence. See section 149(1) Licensing Act.
Test purchasing of alcohol is specifically allowed by law so the young person does not commit an offence and trading standards do not incite an offence. See section 149(1) Licensing Act. abd123
  • Score: 3

3:20pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Jail Time says...

So what. Drink should be sold to all ages anyway.
So what. Drink should be sold to all ages anyway. Jail Time
  • Score: -3

5:40pm Fri 24 Jan 14

ThisYear says...

Nebs wrote:
He thought he was selling a bottle of coke when it was actually a bottle of budweiser. I wonder if he charged the price for coke, as that is what he thought the boy was buying.
Bottle mistaken for bottle..that might be half believed but it seems he thought it was a can of coke..so not only wrong about the contents, but the materiel the container was made of as well as the size and shape..spine complications are rather complicated it seems..lo.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: He thought he was selling a bottle of coke when it was actually a bottle of budweiser. I wonder if he charged the price for coke, as that is what he thought the boy was buying.[/p][/quote]Bottle mistaken for bottle..that might be half believed but it seems he thought it was a can of coke..so not only wrong about the contents, but the materiel the container was made of as well as the size and shape..spine complications are rather complicated it seems..lo. ThisYear
  • Score: 20

7:48pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Chris Flunk says...

Jail Time wrote:
So what. Drink should be sold to all ages anyway.
Do try a bit harder! You are still trolling at a 5 year old's level. You need to be more subtle if you want to get a real reaction.
[quote][p][bold]Jail Time[/bold] wrote: So what. Drink should be sold to all ages anyway.[/p][/quote]Do try a bit harder! You are still trolling at a 5 year old's level. You need to be more subtle if you want to get a real reaction. Chris Flunk
  • Score: 4

8:19am Sat 25 Jan 14

alocal_lad says...

BillericayAdam wrote:
How is this not entrapment by the Police?
erm where does the article mentioned police? This is enforcement action by trading standards officers, not police
[quote][p][bold]BillericayAdam[/bold] wrote: How is this not entrapment by the Police?[/p][/quote]erm where does the article mentioned police? This is enforcement action by trading standards officers, not police alocal_lad
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree