Sentencing for underage alcohol sales

On 9 November 2026, at City of London Magistrates’ Court, following guilty pleas to five offences of selling alcohol to children under section 146 of the Licensing Act 2003, the defendant company, D&D FS Ltd, was ordered to pay a £110,000 fine, £18,000 in prosecution costs and a £2,000 surcharge. The total financial order of £130,000 is believed to be the highest reported penalty imposed by a court for selling alcohol to children since the Licensing Act 2003 came into force over twenty years ago.

The defendant company is the operator and premises licence holder of 14 Stories, a rooftop restaurant and bar in Fenchurch Street, London. It is part of the wider Evolv Collection that operates upscale restaurants, bars and hotels in London, Manchester and Birmingham. On the evening of 22 March 2025, three individuals attended 14 Stories: a 14-year-old female, a 16-year-old female and a 17-year-old male. Over the next few hours, the group were served cocktails and vodka shots, some eleven drinks in all, over five servings. Each serving was reflected in a separate criminal charge. Despite the defendant purporting to operate a Challenge 25 age-verification policy, and having trained its staff on this, none of the five staff members who interacted with the teenagers asked for their age-verification ID at any stage. This included the restaurant manager, the assistant restaurant manager, two bartenders and the receptionist. They later claimed, in statements provided to the prosecution, that despite their training, they believed all three teenagers were, depending on the particular staff member, “over 18”, “over 21” and “over 25”. For that reason, none thought it necessary to age-verify the young customers. The prosecution submitted that age verification was required precisely because young people can look considerably older than their actual age, particularly when dressed up for a night out.

Towards the end of the evening, the 16-year-old female appeared drunk and sleepy and rested her head on the bar. A member of staff provided her with water but claimed not to believe she was “vulnerable”. The prosecution submitted that robust laws exist to deter a licence holder from supplying alcohol to youngsters - it places them in a highly vulnerable position when they enter the night-time economy of a major city.

The relevant sentencing guideline for the offence is the Alcohol Sales Offences (revised 2017) Guideline issued by the Sentencing Council. The prosecution submitted that, given the aggravating factors, this case was a “Category 1” offence involving both “Greater Harm” and “Higher Culpability”. The Court accepted these submissions. In the case of sentencing a corporate offender, the Court’s approach should also be informed by the general guidance on sentencing companies included in the Sentencing Council’s guideline for Environmental Offences. This includes the following important guidance:

“The combination of financial orders must be sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact which will bring home to both management and shareholders the need to improve regulatory compliance. Whether the fine will have the effect of putting the offender out of business will be relevant; in some bad cases this may be an acceptable consequence.”

Given that the annual turnover of the defendant company was more than £6 million, the Court imposed a substantial fine and awarded the prosecuting authority its agreed costs.

Gary Grant, barrister of Francis Taylor Building, acted for the City of London Corporation as prosecuting authority, instructed by its Chief Solicitor (Litigation) Jennifer Phillips, Licensing Team Manager Aggie Minas and Licensing Officer Andre Hewitt.