Agenda item

To consider an application by Home Office Immigration Enforcement (HOIE) for the review of the premises licence.

HOIE have identified illegal working at the premises and no longer have confidence in the licence holder to uphold the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

Section 36 and Schedule 4 of the Immigration Act 2016 (the 2016 Act) amended the Licensing Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) to introduce immigration safeguards in respect of licensing applications made in England and Wales on or after 6 April 2017. The intention is to prevent illegal working in premises licensed for the sale of alcohol or late-night refreshment.

Present: 

 

From BCP Council: 

Sarah Rogers – Senior Licensing Officer 

Johanne McNamara– Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee 

Michelle Cutler – Clerk to the Sub-Committee

Christiane Tan – Observing, Democratic Services 

 

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 ‘B’ to these minutes in the Minute Book.  

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee was asked to consider an application by Home Office Immigration Enforcement (HOIE) for the review of the premises licence for the premises known as ‘Wok4go’.

HOIE had identified illegal working at the premises and no longer had confidence in the licence holder to uphold the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

Section 36 and Schedule 4 of the Immigration Act 2016 (the 2016 Act) amended the Licensing Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) to introduce immigration safeguards in respect of licensing applications made in England and Wales on or after 6 April 2017.  The intention was to prevent illegal working in premises licensed for the sale of alcohol or late-night refreshment.

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

 

Fi Smythe – Immigration Officer

Stephen Morgan – Immigration Officer, observing for training purposes

James Andrews, Set Square Studio, representing the Premises Licence

                            Holder, Mr Rasi Khalil

 

Mr Rasi Khalil did not attend.

 

The Sub-Committee asked various questions of all parties present and were 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 28 April 2026, made by Home Office Immigration Enforcement, to review the premises licence for the premises known as ‘Wok4go’, 13 Holdenhurst Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8EH, 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 Home Office Immigration Enforcement and Dorset Police.

 

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 6, presented by Sarah Rogers, Senior Licensing Officer, including the Witness Statement dated 12 June 2026 provided by Vanessa Rosales, Licensing Officer, Dorset Police, in support of the Application for Review of the Premises Licence on the grounds of Prevention of Crime and Disorder, as well as the verbal submissions made at the hearing by Fi Smythe, Immigration Officer and James Andrews, Set Square Studio, representing Mr Rasti Khalil, the Licence Holder.

 

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.

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that the premises had failed to uphold the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective, 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 Home Office Immigration Enforcement, 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 Home Office Immigration Enforcement 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 Home Office Immigration Enforcement and Dorset Police 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.

 

The Sub-Committee had heard that Dorset Police had visited the premises on 28 May 2026 to find the premises had been left unattended while customer remained inside, which posed a significant risk to public safety. In addition, when Home Office Immigration Enforcement Officers had visited the premises on 13 June 2025, they noted that several existing licensing conditions were being breached, including no operational CCTV, no refusals register and no Designated Premises Supervisor or personal licence holder present. Given that existing conditions were not being adhered to the Sub-Committee had no faith that any new conditions would be complied with.

 

It would not be appropriate to add conditions such as offering a documented right to work check on every staff member in the operation of the business to the licence as 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: 

James Andrews, Set Square Studios, representing Mr Rasti Khalil, licence holder, advised that Mr Khalil was prepared to surrender the element in the licence related to the sale of alcohol, however, serious concerns had been raised by both Home Office Immigration Enforcement and Dorset Police regarding the business as a whole and not the sale of alcohol alone.

 

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, contrary to immigration and other legislation and concerns raised by Dorset Police about the premises being unsupervised during opening hours. 

 

The Sub-Committee note that if licensable activities were not taking place the premises could remain operational as a take-away and that the concerns highlighted may remain.

 

The removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor from the licence:

The Sub-Committee was advised by the Senior Licensing Officer that an application had been made on 22 June 2026 to change the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) from Mr Rasti Khalil to Mr Karzan Omar Ali.

 

Mr James Andrews advised the Sub-Committee that Mr Khalil was also going to transfer the operation of the premises to Mr Ali. Mr Ali already holds a personal licence and would become the new operator with the responsibility for complying with the licensing objectives and ensuring the appropriate compliance checks were carried out for all staff. When questioned, Mr James Andrews confirmed that Mr Khalil and Mr Ali were known to each other as friends but stated they were financially independent of one another.

 

It was noted that Mr Khalil and Mr Ali’s brother were co-directors of another company and the Sub-Committee was concerned about business links between the families.

 

The Sub-Committee was advised that Mr Ali first entered into discussions about the business in May 2026 and noted that the incident referred to in the Dorset Police statement took place after these discussions.

 

The Sub-Committee was disappointed to not have been provided with further information from Mr Ali about his taking over the business and his suitability to operate a licenced premises.

 

The Sub-Committee had no confidence that a new DPS would ensure that right to work checks would be carried out and that Mr Khalil would not be involved in the business operation.

 

The Sub-Committee were of the view that removing Mr Khalil 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:

Mr James Andrews requested a suspension of the licence to allow Mr Ali time to get the business in order and provide evidence that he was operating a new business separate from Mr Khalil. It was noted that the Sub-Committee had been advised by Mr Andrews that Mr Ali had been in discussions regarding operating the business since May 2026 but had failed to provide any information in relation to this by the Sub-Committee hearing on 23^rd June 2026.

 

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 Khalil 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 found that Mr James Andrews had not demonstrated that that Mr Khalil, or Mr Ali, have the attributes necessary to uphold and promote the four licensing objectives, particularly the prevention of crime and disorder.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from the Senior Licensing Officer that an application had been submitted to change the DPS to Mr Karzan Omar Ali, and that he would be taking over the running of the business, however, no application had been received to transfer the Premise Licence Holder.

 

The Sub-Committee were not satisfied with Mr Andrews explanation as to the relationship between Mr Khalil and Mr Ali and were concerned that those in management and control 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 both Mr Khalil and Mr Ali at the hearing left the Sub-Committee with little confidence that in future, ‘Wok4go’ would be run in such a way as to be able to promote the Licensing Objectives. 

 

The Sub-Committee agreed with the views 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, Dorset Police, 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 further noted that the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement) incident took place in June 2025 and the Dorset Police incident relating to the lack of supervision of the premises took place in May 2026, some considerable time later. Both incidents are of grave concern and show a continued disregard to the provisions of the Licence and Licensing Objectives.  The Incident in May 2026 having taken place after the premises received notification of the Review and service of the relevant documentation regarding the same.

 

The Sub-Committee agreed that the premises had been involved in serious crime and had disregarded public safety and had failed to uphold the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety.

 

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.