Agenda item

Brasserie Café Med, 21 Loudoun Road London NW8 0NB

18/12993/LIREVP (“The Premises”)

An application had been submitted by the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement), for a review of the premises licence for Brasserie Café Med, 21 Loudoun Road, London, NW8 0NB (the Premises) on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder.

Officers from Immigration Enforcement had conducted a visit to the Premises on 22 June 2018, and had arrested three subjects as overstayers with no right to work in the UK. In light of the three subjects found working illegally, Home Office Immigration Enforcement wished to seek revocation of the premises licence.  

Immigration Enforcement had now contacted the Licensing Authority to advise that due to the fact that forged documents had been used by some of the workers to gain employment, and that it would not be reasonable to expect the licence holder to know that they were forged, it was that their application for the review of the licence be withdrawn and that the hearing should be dispensed with. 

Prior to opening the Committee for discussion, the Committee wanted to discuss a preliminary issue and sought clarification from the Legal Advisor regarding the request for withdrawal. The Legal Advisor stated that under the Licensing Act 2003 it was a mandatory requirement to hold a hearing in relation to the review of a premises licence and that any such request to withdraw the application for review should be made directly to the Committee to consider the evidence put forward in that respect.

Decision:

After the Hearing had been formally opened, Brian Anderson (on behalf of the Home Office/Applicant) addressed the Committee and confirmed that the Home Office wished the application for revocation to be withdrawn. 

James McGinley (representing the Licence Holder) also addressed the Committee, and confirmed that he did not wish to comment further, unless asked to address a specific issue.

The Committee recognised that asking for revocation of a licence was a major and severe step that had to be treated seriously; and that there were a number of alternative measures to revocation that could have been taken, which included imposing conditions if it were minded to do so

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered the request for withdrawal of the application carefully, and had sympathy for the premises licence holder who had experienced many months of uncertainty.  The parties attending the hearing agreed that the process had been unsatisfactory, and that lessons needed to be learned by the Home Office to ensure that immigration enforcement was dealt with in a professional and appropriate way that was fair to all parties. The Committee also commented that if measures other than revocation were appropriate, they needed to be sought at the appropriate time and that consideration of the licensing objectives should always be borne in mind.

The Committee acknowledged that the facts of the application were not in dispute, and accordingly had no choice but to accept the request that the application for revocation be withdrawn.