Agenda and minutes

To consider an application for the review of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003.

As the Premises Licence Holder for the first item listed on the agenda had not arrived, the Chairman moved the item regarding the application in respect of Razza forward in the proceedings.

The Chairman explained procedure and introduced the panel to Mr Miah and his representative, Mr Wilkinson. The Licensing Team Leader presented her report to the panel, explaining why the premises licence was under review and what decisions the Committee could make in respect of the review. No questions were asked at this point.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Ms Powell presented her report to the panel, outlining the Police’s case for revocation of Mr Miah’s premises licence on the grounds that the ‘prevention of crime and disorder objective’ of the Licensing Act 2003 had been undermined.  

In response to a question from Mr Wilkinson, Ms Powell said Essex Police had been working with local businesses to ensure they were abreast of new legislation. However, she said she would expect business owners to keep themselves informed and added that ‘Right to Work’ checks were not new and had been in force since 1996.

Councillor Gerard asked if the onus was on the licence holder to keep themselves informed of new legislation. Ms Powell said it was but guidance was available in the form of free subscriptions, which updated subscribers on any changes to the law. She added that guidance was also offered by the police when they carried out random checks on licenced premises; however, on this occasion the review had been intelligence led where information received by the Police had pointed to a clear breach of the law.

Mr Wilkinson asked a number of questions relating to individuals mentioned in the report. Ms Powell said two men had been arrested for working illegally at Razza, and another had been identified as a UK national.

Mr Wilkinson tabled a written statement.  The Chairman allowed Members five minutes in which to read the document. The Chairman then invited Ms Powell to question Mr Miah.

In response to a question from the Ms Powell, Mr Miah said he had been out of the country at the time of the Immigration Officer’s visit but he had verbally delegated authority to an employee. He confirmed that this employee was not a premises licence holder and did not have the necessary training, although he did have much experience in the restaurant industry.  

Ms Powell said Mr Miah had put forward the argument that as he had not been prosecuted for illegally employing people, he therefore had done nothing wrong. She said this was untrue and explained the legal distinction between illegal employment and illegal working, and the different standards of proof required to bring forward a successful prosecution. When asked, Mr Miah said he did not retain employment contracts as he mostly employed friends and family. He said it was his delegate who had broken the law, rather than himself, and the Police would have prosecuted him [Mr Miah] if there had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

To consider an application for the review of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003.

Councillor Gerard declared a personal interest as a customer of Radhuni restaurant and took no further part in the meeting. He left the room at 1.10pm.

The Chairman explained procedure and introduced the panel to Mr Ahmed. The Licensing Team Leader presented her report to the panel, explaining why the premises licence was under review, and what decisions the Committee could make in respect of the review; Mr Ahmed confirmed he had been sent a copy of the report.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Ms Powell presented her report to the Committee, outlining the Police’s case for revocation of Mr Miah’s premises licence on the grounds that the ‘Prevention of Crime and Disorder Objective’ of the Licensing Act 2003 had been undermined. No questions were asked at this point.

Mr Ahmed presented his own account at the request of the Chairman. He said the letter he had sent to the Licensing Team Leader was in effect his statement. He said that he was on holiday at the time of the Immigration Officer’s visit and that he only knew one of the three men arrested. He added that the man he knew had been staying with him but he had not given permission for any of the three men to work at his restaurant.

Ms Powell said one of the men arrested claimed he had been working at the restaurant for three months; Mr Ahmed said he had not employed the man but he was staying as a guest in his house. She asked if Mr Ahmed kept employment records; Mr Ahmed said he did not need to as he mainly employed family and friends. He added that he did carry out Right to Work checks if he employed somebody he did not know.

In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr Ahmed said he had not checked the immigration status of his friend who had been arrested for working illegally in his restaurant.

The Chairman asked Mr Ahmed if he did not feel liable for the illegality that had occurred at his restaurant, as referred to in his statement. Mr Ahmed said he did feel responsible and he was only quoting the letter he had received from the police. Mr Clarke said the letter he was referring to was essentially a ‘no further action’ letter which was commonly sent out when a prosecution was not to be taken forward.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Ms Powell submitted a closing statement on behalf of Essex Police. She told the panel that it was common for no prosecution to be brought forward for illegal employment, due to the heavy burden of proof required, but reminded Members that illegal workers had been found on the premises. She said Mr Ahmed had previously failed to carry out Right to Work checks and had been issued a civil penalty in 2011 for this offence. He had also failed to carry out due diligence and provided no employment contracts or proof of right  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.