URL: https://democracy.gosport.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=28

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub Board

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Licensing Sub-Board Decision - Tuesday 24th March 2026   In the matter of: Licensing Act 2003 - Application for review of a premises licence - Brothers Kebab, 79 High Street, Gosport, PO12 1DS   All parties will receive written confirmation of the decision and reasons.   Decision It was determined that the public be excluded from the hearing, after having considered the public interest test in accordance with regulation 14 of the Hearings Regulations. However, it was determined that the decision be drafted so as to enable publication. The Sub-Board has considered very carefully the application for review of a premises licence at Brothers Kebab.  It gave due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance and the adopted statement of licensing policy. The Sub-Board considered the relevant representations, both written and given orally at the hearing, by all parties.  Human rights legislation and the public sector equality duty has been borne in mind whilst making the decision. The premises is a takeaway premises serving hot food / providing late night refreshment. The Sub Board noted that the application was made by the Home Office citing the prevention of crime and disorder as the relevant licensing objective. The issues raised relate to the use of the premises for the employment of an individual without the right to work and another in breach of conditions (i.e. as a cleaner and not a role on the Shortage Occupation List). It was stressed that employing illegal workers undermines other businesses operating properly and encourages illegal entry to the country. It is easy to check on worker status and checks should have been made. Statutory guidance made it clear that revocation should be seriously considered even in the first instance. The police had submitted a representation supporting the Home Office request for revocation of the premises licence - also on the basis of the prevention of crime and disorder objective. There had been a disregard for legal obligations, a lack of effective management and compliance and compromised safeguarding of vulnerable individuals. The licensing objectives had been breached and undermined and there was no confidence that any other measure than revocation could address the risks to the licensing objectives. Mitigating circumstances were outlined on behalf of the premises licence holder with it being stressed that the premises has traded for a year without incident. After having heard all of the above evidence and considering all of the options set out within the legislation (ranging from taking no action to revocation of the premises licence) the Sub-Board determined that the premises licence should be revoked.   Reasons Amongst arguments raised for the premises licence holder the following were stated: -       Those running the premises are fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and the implications. -       The premises will now be run exclusively by the current premises licence holder. -       The premises accepts the fine, has withdrawn the appeal and solicitors are negotiating payment. -       CCTV issues at the premises have now been rectified. -       CCTV has been provided to the police historically when required. -       It was thought that the system was working although accepted not operational for 4-6 months. -       The alarm is now in place. -       No immigrants shall be employed moving forward - all staff have been checked. -       Non-compliance was due to the "partner" who is no longer involved with the premises. -       There has been no other incident of concern since 2013 at the premises. -       The worker details were checked by solicitors prior to employment.   The Sub-Board considered carefully all the points raised for the premises licence holder. The CCTV was not working at the premises at the time of the intervention. It is a clear requirement of the conditions that it be maintained and accessible. The Sub Board accepts the assertion that access was blocked at the time of the intervention, likely in order to prevent illegal working being evidenced. CCTV was noted not to be working when the police visited the premises a year later and other failings were also noted including an apparent lack of training logs, lack of alarm and lack of sign-in book for SIA staff. Whilst the premises licence has been transferred since the investigation, it is clear that a director of the new company holding the premises licence was a director of the company holding the licence at the time of the issues reported. As a result the Sub-Board is not satisfied that the transfer was an "arms length" transfer, nor that the premises is ultimately not being controlled by the same individual or individuals as before. Whilst the premises argued that it would be subject to new management the Sub-Board was not satisfied that the current management was not in a position of significant control, or ought to have been, as a director at the time. The Sub-Board noted that the guidance is clear (at paragraph 9.12) that the responsible authorities are the experts for their respective fields and accordingly that significant weight should be attached to their views, providing they bear appropriate scrutiny. Both Immigration Compliance Enforcement and the Police made it clear that in their view only revocation would satisfactorily address the licensing objectives. Paragraph 11.20 of the guidance makes it clear that the authority should establish the cause of the issues and address / direct any action to those causes. The authority is not in a position to determine criminal guilt and is not undertaking the function of punishing criminal behaviour (paragraph 11.26). The guidance is clear that the criminality in this case is of a type that should be taken particularly seriously (paragraph 11.27) and that deterrence should be considered and revocation should be seriously considered, even in the first instance (paragraph 11.28). The guidance accordingly clearly supports revocation in a case such as this and both the police and Home Office requested this step due to a lack of confidence that any other step could address the issues. Having considered all the facts and the history of non-compliance and lack of due-diligence the Sub-Board had no confidence that any measure other than revocation could satisfactorily promote the licensing objectives and that revocation was appropriate and proportionate. There is a right of appeal for all parties to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days of formal notification of the decision. The decision has no effect until the expiry of the appeal period or, if lodged, the determination of any appeal.     

Date of Decision: March 24, 2026