Martin Stores on the corner of Mitcham Road has lost its liquor licence after a strange sequence of events involving CCTV footage, alleged shoplifters, and a story that failed to convince councillors.
Previously known as Eelam Enterprise, the corner shop had its licence reviewed at the request of PC Belinda Loizou from the Metropolitan Police based on a CCTV recording showing what police described as a clear-cut case of handling stolen goods — and a series of explanations that left the Licensing Sub-Committee entirely unconvinced.
The hearing on 7 May was held in private, after police told Wandsworth councillors public awareness could affect their investigation. Two witness statements, assumed to be from the licence holder, Mr Martin Raj Richard — remain fully redacted. Last week, the details emerged revealing a string of events as bizarre as they were serious.
The Suspicious Transaction
According to the police account, the footage showed a woman entering Martin Stores with a large bag — the contents of which were later described as a collection of suspected stolen items: batteries, chewing gum, and nasal spray. She walked directly to the rear stockroom of the shop, where she emptied the bag onto the floor while a shop employee stood nearby. What followed appeared to be some kind of negotiation between the woman and the staff member, though the footage had no sound.
Shortly afterward, the woman returned to the front of the shop, where Mr Richard, the licence holder, was now behind the till. The employee followed behind. Mr Richard was then seen taking cash out of the till and handing it to the woman. She left the shop with a male companion — both individuals were known to the police for previous shoplifting offences — and, notably, walked out with a bag of crisps without paying.
The most damning moment came next: the shop employee handed over several of the items previously taken from the woman’s bag to Mr Richard, who placed them on a shelf for sale.
To the police, it was clear: the shop was not merely turning a blind eye but was actively accepting stolen goods and reselling them.
The Licence Holder’s Explanation
Mr Richard, through his legal representative, told a very different story. He insisted that he had no idea what was happening at the back of the store — that the woman was not visible from where he stood, and that he assumed the employee was simply collecting stock.
As for the money? That, Mr Richard said, was handed over because the employee had asked him to — claiming he owed the woman wages or a personal debt. Mr Richard was new to the premises and still learning the ropes and simply complied, he argued.
He stressed that this all took place within his first few days of running the store, having only taken over the licence in mid-December. Prior to that, he said, he had been living with his family in Swansea and had no knowledge of the shop’s previous issues which included stolen alcohol being found on the premises and employees without work visas.
His lawyer acknowledged that a witness statement submitted by Mr Richard — one of the two redacted documents — may have caused some confusion, particularly the part that appeared to suggest the woman was an employee. That, they claimed, was a miscommunication.
A Pattern of Breaches
The CCTV incident was not the only issue raised.
At the time of the police visit on 30 January, the shop was open past its licensed hours — specifically, at 2:16am, despite being required to close by 2:00am. Mr Richard said he was only cleaning in preparation for the next day and not trading, but the committee noted that the footage showed the store clearly in operation.
Receipts recovered by the police included items labelled only as “miscellaneous”, often with high values, and in one case, a sale of vodka annotated with the phrase “Young Boy Shop”. The committee raised concerns about the possibility of alcohol being sold on credit — or even to minors.
In addition, a plastic bag filled with duty-free cigarettes was found behind the counter. Mr Richard claimed he was unaware of the bag’s contents, but the committee found it implausible that he would not have noticed it while working in the same space repeatedly.
Sub-Committee Deliberations
The Sub-Committee’s legal advisor reminded councillors that they were not there to decide whether a crime had been committed — that would be a matter for the police and courts — but instead to determine whether the licence holder had met the legal standards required to uphold the licensing objectives, including the prevention of crime and protection of the public.
In their written decision, the councillors said that Mr Richard’s explanations “lacked credibility” and that if taken at face value, they revealed a level of “extreme naivety” incompatible with the responsibilities of running a licensed premises.
They also found that the apparent transaction caught on CCTV — in which cash was handed over, goods were accepted, and items were immediately put up for sale — was “extremely suspicious” and undermined confidence in the premises.
Even if Mr Richard was not personally involved in wrongdoing, the councillors said, his lack of oversight and weak management allowed unacceptable activity to occur under his watch.
A Licence Revoked
On 12 May, Wandsworth Council formally issued its decision to revoke the alcohol licence for Martin Stores. The revocation does not take effect immediately, allowing for a 21-day appeal period. But unless overturned, the shop will no longer be permitted to sell alcohol.
The two redacted witness statements — one of them written after Mr Richard viewed the CCTV footage at the police station — remain confidential due to the ongoing criminal investigation, and it’s possible further developments may follow.
But for now, the Sub-Committee has spoken. One suspicious night, an implausible story, and a series of licensing breaches proved enough to close the books on Martin Stores’ right to sell alcohol — at least for the foreseeable future.
