To consider an application for a review of a premise licence in respect of The Ruby Takeaway, 23 Union Street, Hereford. HR1 2BT called by West Mercia Police under the Licensing Act 2003.

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.

Prior to making its decision, the Licensing Technical Officer presented the report which outlined the optionsavailable tothe Sub-Committeeand membersheard representationsfrom PCDean Walland the Police Licensing Officer.

PC Dean Wall, representing West Mercia Police, provided details of the operations conducted by the multi-agency tasking and enforcement operation on 11 April 2024 and details of the ongoing investigation following the operation. There was no longer concern that money laundering was being undertaken at the premises and this element of the investigation had ceased. Following investigation ithad beenestablished thatthree workersat theRuby Chinesehad beenworking illegally.Reference was madeto theearlier suspensionof the licencein 2018;it wasevident thatthis earlierincident had not changed practices at the premises with respect to the employment of workers with no legal right to work in the United Kingdom. It was requested that the licence berevoked.

Mr Sinh Quang Tran referred to the application made by West Mercia Police/supplement that had been circulated in advance of the meeting. In summary, he explained that:

·       He had run a business in the United Kingdom over the last 30 years and had complied with regulations and worked in this country to maintain business in legalway.

·       Officers at the council were aware that his business had been run in a legalmanner.

·       The allegations concerning money laundering and immigration offences weredenied.

·       During the operation by the Police members of his family had been veryscared.

·       The PoliceOfficers involvedin theraids hadno writtenwarrants andhe wasvery shockedby the action.

·       The accusationof moneylaundering was unfounded,the moneyfound waslegitimate money acquired through hisbusiness.

·       He was sad about the charge lodged againsthim.

·       He was unaware of English Law therefore was unable to arrange for legalrepresentation.

·       When police undertook the raid they had destroyed furniture and goods resulting in £5,000-

£6,000 of damages for which compensation should be received.

·       Following the raid the business was closed for two days and a lot of income had beenlost.

·       Any action taken against him would be complied with infull.

Following questions it was confirmed:

·       That Mr Tran had accepted immigration offences in 2018 but since then had ensured that all necessary regulations had been appliedproperly.

·       That thestaff workingin thekitchen werevoluntary. Whystaff therewere withno rightto work in the UK after issues in 2018? Those people helping were voluntary workers and were not beingpaid.

·       Had heemployed orengaged animmigration advisorwhen employingpeople? Nolegal advice sought whenhiring.

Having carefully considered those matters brought before them and in reaching their decision, the Membershad fullregard toboth theprovisions ofthe LicensingAct 2003,the GuidanceIssued under Section 182 and Herefordshire Council’s statement of licensingpolicy.

DECISION

The Sub-Committee’s decision following a review of premises licence is as follows: The premises licence shall be revoked.

REASONS

The Sub-Committee has taken into account the statement and evidence from West Mercia Police in respect of the events on 11 April 2024 and the reasons why they were seeking revocation of the premises licence as a result of the employment persons in contravention of immigration law.

It was recognised that this was a serious crime and that the request for a review was justified.

The premises licence holder acknowledged he did not engage the services of an immigration advisor which was a condition placed upon the licence when the Premises Licence holder was last before the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee considered the submissions of the Premises Licence Holder carefully and took into account the length of time that the license had been held for. They considered the language barrier outlined by the Premises Licence Holder but felt there was sufficient support available for him if he requested it and that he had not done so.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that this was the second time that the premises had been before the Sub-Committee for similar concerns. There was evidence of a persistent failure to comply with licensing law and regulatory requirements.

Taking in to account the statutory guidance the Sub-Committee was aware that where reviews arise and the licensing authority determines that the crime prevention objective is being undermined, it is expected that revocation of the licence – even in the first instance – should be seriously considered.

The Sub-Committeeconsidered thatthe breachof immigrationlaw isserious, theyconsidered asthis was the second incident and that previously the licence had been suspended, this further incident warrantsrevocation. Itwas decidedthat thedecision wasappropriate andproportionate toensure the promotionof thelicensing objectivesand preventthe underminingof thecrime anddisorder objective.