Decision details

Having listened to all the evidence and considered the above the Members determined to SUSPEND the Premises Licence for a period of three (3) months and to modify the conditions of the Premises Licence.

Having listened to all the evidence and considered the above the Members determined to SUSPEND the Premises Licence for a period of three (3) months and to modify the conditions of the Premises Licence.

In terms of Members’ options. Clearly, it would not be appropriate and proportionate to:

• Take no action at all – the Licensing Authority takes illegal working particularly seriously in-line with the Section 182 guidance.

• Exclude a Licensable Activity – this would have had no impact.

• Remove the DPS – the DPS at the time of the illegal working had already been replaced and the Committee did not think it would be appropriate to remove the current DPS pending the sale of the business.

• Revoke the Licence – Members seriously considered revoking the Premises Licence however, Members noted that the Applicant for Review (the Home Office) indicated that having heard all the evidence, they would support a suspension of the Premises Licence pending the sale of the business coupled with the imposition of robust conditions regarding illegal working to enable future checking and monitoring to take place.

Accordingly, Members decided to:

(1)  Suspend the Premises Licence for a period of three (3) months – Members wish to be clear to the outgoing, current, and any prospective Premises Licence Holders that illegal working is against the law, unacceptable, and will not be tolerated in Huntingdonshire. Members imposed the maximum suspension available to them to send a clear message to all of the above, that should further illegal working be discovered at this Premises, revocation will almost certainly result.

(2)  To add a series of conditions to the Premises Licence dealing with the genesis of the review, namely illegal working permitted by management – Members felt that it was appropriate and proportionate to add these conditions to promote the Licensing Objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and to ensure that the Premises Licence Holder and any future Premises Licence Holders conduct robust right to work checks with appropriate recording of those checks. The Members also imposed a condition, suggested by the Respondent, that neither M Shohid or A Shohid will have any future involvement or say in the business.

• The specific circumstances of each individuals’ right to work – it was accepted that illegal working had taken place.

• Mr M Shohid’s personal circumstances – these were not relevant to the Licensing Objectives.

• Mr A Shohid’s personal circumstances – these were not relevant to the Licensing Objectives.

• The commercial interests of the former and current Premises Licence Holder – these were not relevant to the Licensing Objectives.

• That illegal had taken place at the Premises – this was accepted by the Respondent.

• That there was little to no management control of the Premises by either M Shohid or A Shohid.

• That conducting right to work checks is an easy process – this was outlined by the Applicant and the Respondent apologised that this had not happened.

• That the Premises is in the process of being sold to a Mr Rahman with the sale being contingent on a Premises Licence existing for the Premises – this was confirmed by the Respondent in questioning.

• That completion of the sale (by way of assignation of the lease) is due to take place on or around 10 September 2024.

• That Mr Aahil will manage the Premises up to the point of sale, at which time an entirely new management team and staff will take over the operation of the Premises.

• That Mr Rahman will be making an application to transfer the Premises Licence and to vary the Designated Premises Supervisor upon completion.

The Applicant – Mr Wootton (Home Office)

The Respondant (Premises Licence Holder) – Mr Rankin (Counsel), the Premises Licence Holder and the Son of the Previous Licence Holder.