Agenda item

Members of the Statutory Licensing Sub Committee of the Council’s Statutory Licensing Committee were asked to consider an application for a review of a premise licence for Somerset Convenience Store, 60 Somerset Road, Norton, Stockton on Tees, TS20 2ND.

The application had been made by the Licensing Authority acting as a Responsible Authority on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and protection of children from harm licensing objectives.

The Chair introduced all persons who were present and explained the procedure to be followed during the hearing.

The Members noted that this review of the premises licence was made at the request of the Licensing Authority. Representations had been received from other responsible authorities including Cleveland Police, Public Health and Immigration Enforcement.

Mr A the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) attended the meeting was given the opportunity to make representation.

The Licensing Officer presented the Licensing Authority’s case to the Sub-Committee. It was explained that the application for a review of the premises licence was due to the undermining of the licensing objectives; specifically the prevention of crime and disorder objective.

The Sub-Committee heard that the Licensing Authority’s concerns related to illegal working at the premises, for which a civil penalty had been issued under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

The Public Health Practitioner confirmed Public Health’s support of the review application, and echoed concerns that the presence of illegal workers at the premises undermined the crime and disorder licensing objective.

Seargeant Bavin of Cleveland Police outlined his concerns in relation to the premises to the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee heard from Seargeant Bavin that the licensing objectives were not being upheld at the premises, demonstrated by the presence of illegal workers. 

Mr A and the Sub-Committee members were given an opportunity to ask questions of each of the Responsible Authority representatives. Mr A did not ask any questions.

Mr A explained to the Sub-Committee that the two females in question at the shop were not illegal workers, despite the immigration authorities believing that they were.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr A that the two females were friends of his partner that she knew personally. Mr A told the Sub-Committee that his partner managed the shop, and that the females were there completing unpaid works experience.

In response to questioning from the Sub-Committee, Mr A believed that the females became legal workers after the visit from Immigration Enforcement, and that they did not have leave to remain in the country and would have to leave at the end of December 2024.

Mr A told the Sub-Committee that he had done his best and would not make the same mistakes again in future.

The Sub-Committee and other parties present were invited to ask questions of Mr A.

All parties present were given an opportunity to sum up their case.

The Licensing Officer clarified to the Sub-Committee that he was present during the Immigration Enforcement visit to the premises on 11th July 2024. The Licensing Officer explained to the Sub-Committee that it was established that the two females were being sponsored to work in the UK by a company that was subsequently dissolved. The females were permitted to complete 20 hours of skilled work per week; however, shop work was not classified as skilled work.

In summing up, the Licensing Officer reiterated his serious concerns about the premises employing illegal workers, compounded by concerns over poor management, particularly Mr A not knowing who was working at the premises.

Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee of the Council’s Statutory Licensing Committee considered the above application, including the full details before the Members within their agenda and the background papers.

The Members noted that the review of the premises licence was made at the request of the Licensing Authority. Representations had been received from other responsible authorities including Cleveland Police, Public Health and Immigration Enforcement. The Committee noted that no representations had been received from anyone else in support of the Premises. 

Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee carefully considered those matters brought before them and, in reaching their decision, had regard to their powers under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006), the relevant paragraphs of the Guidance Issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended) and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

It was noted that Mr A had not disputed any of the evidence presented by the responsible authorities, although he did confirm that he had exercised his right to appeal the civil penalty notice, which was yet to be determined. 

The Sub-Committee noted that under the management of Mr A, he had breached section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and had received a civil penalty notice for illegal working. The Committee noted that Mr A had appealed this notice.

The Sub-Committee had regard to the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act and in particular the paragraphs in relation to the review of premises licences.

The Sub-Committee noted a premise licence holder must ensure that the promotion of the four statutory licensing objectives was a paramount consideration at all times. In the Sub-Committee’s view, on the balance of probability, Mr A had failed in this responsibility.

The Sub-Committee had regard to the powers available to them when considering what action, if any, to take under the premise licence review process.

•The Sub-Committee could take no action.

The Sub-Committee viewed the actions of Mr A to be serious, and therefore did not feel that this was an option open to them in the circumstances.

•The Sub-Committee could attach further conditions to the licence.

Again, the Sub-Committee did not feel that this was a case where additional conditions were appropriate to remedy or address the behaviour of Mr A.

•The Sub-Committee could remove Mr A as the Designated Premises Supervisor. The Sub-Committee considered this option, however, were of the view that that this would not be appropriate given that he remained the owner and controlling mind of the business. 

•The Sub-Committee could suspend the licence.

The Sub-Committee, in the past, had considered this an appropriate course of action to allow a premises time to take steps to remedy issues. The Sub-Committee felt, however, that the issue of illegal workers was too serious, compounded by the concerns around poor management of the premises.

•The final and ultimate sanction was the revocation of the Premises Licence.

This was not a step that the Sub-Committee took lightly and would only be taken in relation to matters which they deemed to be serious breaches of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee took this matter extremely seriously and were satisfied that this was a case where revocation of the premises licence was a necessary and appropriate sanction. After considering and weighing up all of the evidence and submissions made by the parties to the hearing, the Sub-Committee resolved to revoke the premises licence.

RESOLVED that the premises licence for Somerset Convenience Store, 60 Somerset Road, Norton, Stockton-on-Tees, TS20 2ND be revoked for the reasons as detailed above.