To consider an application for a review of a premise licence in respect of Ruby Chinese Takeaway, 23 Union Street, Hereford. HR1 2BT called by Police Sergeant 3456 Reynolds of West Mercia Police.

Members of the licensing sub-committee of the council’s planning and regulatory committee considered the above application, full details of which appeared before the Members in their agenda and the background papers.

Prior to making their decision the members heard from Emma Bowell, Licensing Technical Officer and Sergeant Duncan Reynolds.   The committee also heard from the premises licence holder, Sinh Quang Tran.

West Mercia Police outlined their representation in connection with the review which included:

·                The premises were a well established business licensed for late night refreshment which had operated for a number of years in Union Street Hereford.   

·                The premises were also covered by the special cumulative impact policy which should also be taken into account when reviewing the licence.

·                The police were involved in a Multi Agency Targeted Enforcement (MATE) group which was comprised of a number of agencies including the fire service, UK Border and Immigration Service, HMRC and various departments within Herefordshire Council. The purpose of the group was to ensure legal compliance and to target premises where there was intelligence to suggest that there was significant risk of harm to anyone who works or uses the premises.

·                A MATE operation had taken place at the premises on 7 April 2018 which had been open for business.   The intelligence received was that there were potentially illegal immigrants employed at the premises.   The purpose of the visit had been explained to Mr Tran. 

·                As part of the visit on 7 April, three males and one female had been detained as they were found to be in the country illegally with no right to stay or work in the UK.  

·                Mr Tran had been issued with a civil enforcement penalty as a result of the enforcement visit.

·                At the time of detention, the female had £2,100 in her possession and could not explain why she had that amount of money.   This issue is the subject of further investigation.  

·                It is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that all legal checks are completed to ensure that employees have the right to work or stay in the United Kingdom.   

·                Based on the numbers employed by Mr Tran, this was not an isolated incident and is a serious offence.   By failing to undertaken the appropriate checks for new employees, it showed a disregard to the law of the land.    The view of West Mercia Police was that due to the seriousness of the matter that the licence be revoked. 

·                The S182 guidance indicates that consideration be given to revocation as the employment of illegal immigrants is considered to be a serious matter. 

The committee then heard from Mr Tran who stated that he had been running the business for 24 years and had never done anything illegal during this period of time.   He was truly and sincerely apologetic for this mistake.    Mr Tran was ill at the moment and as a result could not cope with a lot of work and had found staff who were willing to help him.    He also indicated that there were no other people living upstairs in the premises and that he would obey the law.  He asked the committee for another chance as he had a young child and family to look after.   If the licence was revoked, he would not be able to continue the business.  

Following questions, it was confirmed:

·                That UK Border Agency had used a language line in order to interpret during the enforcement visit.  

·                The staff had been introduced to Mr Tran by friends as people who would be able to work for him.

·                There were no HR policies or employments checks in place as Mr Tran was unaware that he needed these.   It was also the first time that he had employed staff.

·                Most of his business was run at night and due to ill health, this had impacted on his ability to work.  

·                Mr Tran was from Vietnam and the four people detained were from various parts of China so there was no relationship between then.  

The committee have carefully considered all the representations, reports and evidence before them today. They have had regard to their duties under S4 of the Licensing Act and considered guidance issued under s182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and Herefordshire’s statement of licensing policy. 

DECISION

The sub committee’s  decision following a review of premises licence is as follows;

The premises licence shall be suspended for a period of two (2) months and the following condition shall be placed on the premises licence:

“The premises licence holder shall permanently engage the services of an immigration advisor, as agreed in writing with the licensing authority, who shall undertake a review of all existing employees at the premises and to check entitlement to live and work in the UK and thereafter independently verify prospective employees’ right to live and work in the UK prior to the employee being engaged to work at the premises”. 

REASONS

The committee had taken into account the statement from West Mercia Police as regards the events of 7 April 2018 and the reasons why they were seeking revocation of the premises licence.   The premises licence holder had admitted to employing persons in contravention of immigration law and apologised for it. It was recognised that this was a serious crime and that the request for a review was justified.

They took into account the 24 years that the license had been held for and the fact this was the first time that the premises had been before the subcommittee. There was no evidence of a persistent failure to comply with licensing law and regulatory requirements.

Taking in to account the statutory guidance at 11.28 the committee was aware that where reviews arise and the licensing authority determines that the crime prevention objective is being undermined through the premises being used to further crimes, it is expected that revocation of the licence – even in the first instance – should be seriously considered.

While the committee considered that the breach of immigration law is serious, they considered it did not warrant revocation on this occasion and a suspension of two (2) months with the above condition, would give the premises licence holder the opportunity to implement systems to ensure that any employee had the right to live and work in the UK. Given the likely financial impact of a revocation it was decided that the decision was appropriate and proportionate to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives and prevent the undermining of the crime and disorder objective