The Licensing Act 2003 Sub-Committee met to review the premises licence for Unions Cafe, and decided to suspend the licence for one month. The review was prompted by an incident where the premises licence holder (PLH) obstructed Immigration Enforcement officers, leading to police involvement. The suspension aims to allow authorities to work with the cafe's management and assess their understanding of relevant training to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Unions Cafe Licence Review

The meeting addressed an application by the Metropolitan Police to review the premises licence of Unions Cafe, located at 373 High Road, Leyton, E10 5NA. The application was based on concerns that the cafe was undermining the licensing objectives related to the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety.

According to the report pack provided to the committee, the review was initiated due to the behaviour and actions of the premises licence holder, Adriatik Zeqja. During the consultation period, the council received representations from the Home Office Immigration Enforcement and the Council’s Premises Licensing team, supporting the review application. These representations also cited concerns about crime, disorder and public safety.

PC Anthony Ellice from the Metropolitan Police detailed an incident on 8 January 2025, where police were called to Unions Cafe because Immigration Enforcement officers were being obstructed in carrying out their duties. According to PC Ellice, the officers were met with aggression by Adriatik Zeqja, the premises licence holder.

Ms Beata Hughes and Mr Paul Hendin from Immigration Enforcement, explained that they had attended the cafe as part of an intelligence led visit, but were met with hostility and abuse, and were prevented from carrying out their duty under s179 of the Licensing Act¹.

Darren Reilly, from the LBWF Licensing team, supported the police application, stating that the Immigration Enforcement visit had to be abandoned due to the aggressive behaviour, and that the Designated Premises Supervisor's (DPS's) actions were reckless.

Representing himself with the support of Nigel Carter, a Licensing Consultant, Adriatik Zeqja apologised for his behaviour, attributing it to stress related to his mother's illness and business concerns. Nigel Carter added that training had been delivered to Adriatik Zeqja, his brother Shkelzea, (the proposed new DPS) and other staff members on 18 February 2025, covering how to deal with visits from responsible authorities², and that this training would be repeated every six months. Nigel Carter argued that a suspension was unnecessary and punitive, potentially forcing the cafe to close. He also stated that Adriatik Zeqja would have no further involvement with the business, and had been taken off the lease.

Shkelzea, Adriatik Zeqja's brother, told the sub-committee that he had worked as a security doorman for six and a half years, and had experience of running a similar business in his country of origin. He also stated that he had helped manage the business. Adriatik Zeqja stated that he was sorry for his actions, and that his premises had been broken into before, so he was concerned when Immigration Enforcement carried out their visit as they didn’t identify themselves.

After hearing from all parties, the Sub-Committee viewed body-cam footage of the incident. They then decided to suspend the premises licence for one month.

In reaching their decision, the sub-committee noted that:

• Emergency police attendance was required because Immigration Enforcement Officers were being obstructed and met with aggression.
• Immigration Enforcement officers were prevented from carrying out their lawful duties.
• It was unclear whether the training provided to staff was sufficient.
• No transfer of the licence had taken place to the new proposed DPS.

The sub-committee concluded that Adriatik Zeqja's behaviour towards the responsible authorities was irresponsible and unprofessional, and that he had failed to promote and uphold the licensing objectives on the day of the incident, namely the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. They felt that the suspension was required to allow the responsible authorities to work with the venue's management, to provide advice and assess the understanding of the training provided, with a view to preventing such an incident reoccurring in the future.