Agenda item

To consider an application by Dorset Police for the review of the premises licence following a visit by HM Immigration Enforcement where they discovered 2 illegal workers employed at the premises.

Dorset Police no longer have confidence in the premises licence holder to uphold the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

 

This matter is brought to the Sub Committee for determination.

 

Present:

 

From BCP Council:

 

Sarah Rogers – Senior Licensing Officer

Lina Cole – Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee

Michelle Cutler – Clerk to the Sub-Committee

Tania Jardim – Licensing Officer, Observing

Andy McDiarmid – Legal Advisor, observing

Cllr P Canavan - Observing

 

The Chair made introductions and explained the procedure for the hearing which was agreed by all parties.

 

The Licensing Officer presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated and a copy of which appears as Appendix ‘A’ to these minutes in the Minute Book.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee was asked to consider an application made by Dorset Police for a Review of the Premises Licence following a visit by HM Immigration Enforcement where 2 illegal workers were found employed at the premises. Dorset Police no longer had confidence in the premises licence holder to uphold the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

 

The following persons attended the hearing and addressed the Sub-Committee to expand on the points made in their written submissions:

 

For the Applicant:

Sargeant Gareth Gosling – Dorset Police

 

For the Premises:

Roy Francis – Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor

 

The Sub-Committee asked various questions of all parties present and was grateful for the responses received. All parties had the opportunity to ask questions. All parties were invited to sum up before the Sub-Committee retired to make its decision. Before concluding the hearing, the Legal Advisor advised all parties of the right of appeal.

 

RESOLVED that?having considered the application dated 25 March 2025, made by Dorset Police to review the premises licence for the premises known as ‘Chicken n Beer’, 58-58A Stanfield Road, Bournemouth, BH9 2NP, the Sub-Committee has decided that it is appropriate to revoke the licence on the grounds that the premises are not upholding the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective and is satisfied that there is no alternative outcome that will mitigate the concerns raised by Dorset Police and Home Office Immigration Enforcement.? 

? 

The Sub-Committee?gave detailed consideration to?all of the information which had been submitted before the hearing and contained in the report for Agenda Item 5, presented by Sarah Rogers, Senior Licensing Officer, in particular the written and oral evidence provided by Sgt Gosling of Dorset Police, the written representation made by Home Office Immigration Enforcement dated 26 March 2025 in support of the review on the grounds of Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Public Safety, as well as the verbal submissions made at the hearing by Mr Roy Francis, Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor. 

? 

In determining the review, the Sub-Committee considered the options available to them as set out in the recommendations of the report and provided for in the Licensing Act 2003. They took account of the Guidance by the Secretary of State made under section 182 of that Act as well as the BCP Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub-Committee’s decision is based upon consideration of the promotion of the Licensing Objectives. The Sub- Committee acknowledged that it was only able to consider matters directly relevant to the licensing objectives raised in the application namely prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. 

? 

The Sub-Committee concluded that the premises had failed to uphold the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety licensing objectives, and that revocation of the Licence was the only appropriate response to the issues raised in the review when considering the evidence currently available to it.? 

? 

Reasons for decision? 

? 

Members of the Sub-Committee in determining the application for review must consider the following options: -? 

a) Leave the licence in its current state.? 

b) Modify the conditions of the licence; and/or?? 

c) Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the license; and / or? 

d) Remove the Designated Premises Supervisor; and/or?? 

e) Suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months; and/or?? 

f) Revoke the licence.? 

 

Leave the licence in its current state:? 

In considering the information contained in the agenda report, the representations made by Dorset Police, and the verbal submissions made during the hearing, the Licensing Sub-Committee agreed that taking no action would not be a sufficient response to the concerns identified by Dorset Police in bringing this review.?? 

 

The Guidance issued by the Home Office under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 updated in February 2025, alongside the BCP Statement of Licensing Policy both guide that intervention is expected to tackle Immigration offences associated with licensed premises. 

? 

Modify the conditions of the licence; and/or add conditions? 

The Sub-Committee do not consider that modifying the existing conditions would resolve the concerns raised by Dorset Police and Home Office Immigration Enforcement as conditions should not duplicate other statutory requirements or other duties or responsibilities placed on the employer by other legislation and should not replicate offences set out in the 2003 act or other legislation.

 

It would not be appropriate to add conditions such as not to use illegal workers or those suffering from a Notifiable Disease in the operation of the business to the licence. There is an expectation that all responsible for running a business would act responsibly and within all relevant legislation. 

? 

Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence:? 

The Sub-Committee do not consider that excluding a licensable activity from the scope of the licence to be an appropriate response to the concerns raised in this review.??The issue was not the sale of alcohol but the evidence that the premises are associated with employing or operating with illegal workers being recompensed below the minimum wage, one of who had a notifiable disease, contrary to immigration and other legislation. 

 

The Sub-Committee note that if licensable activities were not taking place the premises could remain operational as a take-away until 23:00hrs each day and that the concerns highlighted may remain. The Sub-Committee however must ensure they do what they can to ensure the Licensing Objectives are promoted within the premises and it will be for other agencies to manage any remaining issues under alternative legislation. 

?? 

The removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor from the licence:?? 

Mr Roy Francis advised the Sub-Committee that he is no longer a director of ‘Chicken n Beer’ Ltd, having stood down in December 2024. He advised he is just an employee and not involved in hiring of staff and only remains as DPS because he is a personal licence holder and they supply alcohol. 

 

The Sub-Committee were of the view that removing Mr Francis as DPS would not be enough to alleviate the issues raised in the Review Application.?The Sub-Committee are unable to remove the Premises License Holder. 

Suspension of the Licence:?? 

The Sub-Committee?feel that a temporary suspension of the Premises Licence of up to three months will not resolve the concerns raised in the Application for Review.? 

? 

Revocation of the Licence:? 

The Sub-Committee, after considering all the options available to them, determined that revocation of the premises licence is the appropriate option in response to this Application for Review. 

 

The evidence presented to them clearly demonstrates that Mr Francis, as DPS and Premises Licence holder and others associated with the business do not manage the premises responsibly and that they should have had regard to the necessary requirements, when employing employees into the business. 

 

The Sub-Committee were not confident that Mr Francis was being honest in his responses to questions raised by the Sub-Committee and was trying to distance himself from the situation that was discovered by Immigration Enforcement on 14 February 2025. He demonstrated that he does not have the attributes necessary to uphold and promote the four licensing objectives,?particularly?the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. 

?? 

Mr Francis confirmed that he was employed at the premises when it was found to be employing illegal workers. However, he advised he had resigned as the Director of ‘Chicken N Beer’ Ltd on 1 December 2024 and will only remain employed, and as the DPS at the premises, until a new director obtains their personal licence, so they could continue to supply alcohol. His brother, Sylvester Francis, became a director of Chicken N Beer’ Ltd on 1 December 2024.  

 

The Sub-Committee heard from the Senior Licensing Officer that an application had been submitted to transfer the premises licence into the name of Cloud Brands Ltd and to change the DPS, however these transfers had not yet been processed due to nonpayment of the application fee. Cloud Brands is a new company incorporated on 1 December 2024   

 

Mr Francis informed the Sub-Committee that Cloud Brands Limited had taken over the running of the premises, and that the director was Manpreet Kaur. The Sub-Committee asked Mr Francis if he knew, or was related to, Manpreet Kaur and he advised that Manpreet Kaur was not a family member and that she was not an associate. Sgt Gosling advised that on 24 February 2025, Mr Francis had contacted Dorset Police to report the theft of his wife’s vehicle, and that his wife’s name was Manpreet Kaur, with the same date of birth as Manpreet Kaur, Director of Cloud Brands Limited. Mr Francis continued to uphold that Manpreet Kaur was not related to him, despite Manpreet Kaur also being the new Director of Freshers Delivery Limited, another company from which Mr Francis has recently resigned as a director. The Sub-Committee were not satisfied with Mr Francis’ explanation as to his involvement with Manpreet Kaur, the potential new DPS of the premises, and were concerned that an attempt was being made to change the face of the business, i.e. the name of the Premises Licence Holder and DPS, but reality, those in management and control, including Mr Roy Francis, would not effectively change.  

 

The Sub-Committee do not believe that those involved with operating the premises have done so responsibly and in a way that upholds the Licensing Objectives. The absence of any representatives at the hearing of Cloud Brands Ltd and director Manpreet Kaur, supposedly now running the premises, left the Sub-Committee with little confidence that it was a separate operation able to promote the Licensing Objectives. 

 

The Sub-Committee agreed with the views of Dorset Police as highlighted in the representation of Home Office Immigration Enforcement, that the employment of illegal workers at this licensed premises disregards the law, places those illegal workers at increased vulnerability and acts to the detriment of other businesses and the wider community. 

 

The Sub-Committee considered the application for review including the representation produced by Home Office Immigration Enforcement, the BCP Council Statement of Licensing Policy and the revised section 182 Guidance issued by the Home Office. They noted sections 11.27 and 11.28 of the guidance which states that, “There is certain criminal activity that may arise in connection with licensed premises which should be treated particularly seriously. These are… the use of the licensed premises for employing a person who is disqualified from that work by reason of their immigration status in the UK;”.   

 

Section 11.28 continues, “It is envisaged that licensing authorities, the police, the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement) and other law enforcement agencies, which are responsible authorities, will use the review procedures effectively to deter such activities and crime. 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.”  

 

The Sub-Committee agreed that the premises had been involved in serious crime and had disregarded public safety and that to uphold the licensing objectives, the Sub-Committee concluded that none of the other available options were appropriate at this time, and it was both appropriate and necessary to revoke the licence.  

 

Right of appeal? 

? 

An appeal against the review decision may be made to a Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of the appellant being notified of the Licensing Authority’s determination on the review. An appeal may be made by the Premises Licence Holder, the Chief Officer of Police and/or any interested person who made relevant representations.?