Content

Notification of decision following a Licensing
Sub-Committee hearing to determine a review application for a
premises licence submitted under s51 of the Licensing Act 2003
 
PREMISES:  
The Hothouse Cafe, 448 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick W4 5TT
(“the Premises”)
 
APPLICANT:  Home Office, Immigration
Enforcement, Alcohol Licensing Team, Lunar House, 40 Wellesley
Road, Croydon CR9 2BY
  
TAKE NOTICE
THATON 6 February 2024 following a
hearing before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub-Committee
(the “Licensing Panel” or
“Panel”),
 
HOUNSLOW COUNCIL,
as the Licensing Authority for the Premises
RESOLVED that:
 
the
licence for the Premises is REVOKED as explained
below.
 
REASONS:
 

1)        
The Licensing Panel convened in person on 6 February
2024 to determine an application for review of the premises licence
for Hothouse Cafe, 448 Chiswick High Road,
Chiswick W4 5TT (“the Premises”) made under section 51
of the Licensing Act 2003. 
 

2)        
The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the
relevant information including:

·      
Written and oral representations made by all the
parties

·      
The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to
promote the Licensing Objectives

·      
The guidance issued under section 182 of the
Licensing Act 2003 (“the Statutory
Guidance”)

·      
Hounslow Council’s Statement Licensing Policy
2020-2025 (“the Council’s
Policy”)

·      
The Human Rights Act 1998
 

3)   
The application, which is shown as Appendix A to the
Agenda is made by Home Office (Immigration Enforcement)
(“theApplicant”), being a responsible authority under section 8.7 of the
Statutory Guidance who have applied for a review of the premises
licence on the basis that the licence holder has failed to meet the
licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder as
illegal working has been identified at the Premises. The existing
Licence is shown at Appendix B (Premises licence number is H00948)
and allows for the following Licensable
activities:
 
·      
Supply of alcohol:
Sunday to Thursday 11:00 to
23:00
Friday & Saturday 11:00 to
00:00
 
·      
Live music:
Thursday to Sunday 19:00 to
23:00
 
·      
Recorded music:
Sunday to Thursday 08:00 to
23:00
Friday & Sunday 08:00 to
00:00
 
·      
Late-night refreshment:
Sunday to Thursday 23:00 to
23:30
Friday & Saturday 23:00 to
00:30
 
·      
The opening hours of the premises
Sunday to Thursday 08:00 to
23:30
Friday & Saturday 08:00 to
00:30
 

4)        
During the consultation process over twenty
representations were received from local
residents along with one representation from a councillor
(Councillor Biddolph) (“the Objectors”) all of
which were objecting to the review application and in support of
the Premises and Licence Holder. The representations are shown in
full at Appendix C. In addition to the written representations, a
witness statement and accompanying evidence was submitted by Mr
Samy Amer (“the Licence Holder”) who is also the
Designated Premises Supervisor. The representations from the
Objectors include concerns that people will lose a place of value
to the community suggesting it is a popular place to eat and to
visit for its music / other events.
 

5)        
The Applicant was represented by three immigration
officers. The Licence Holder attended in person and was represented
by Mr Jon Payne. Councillor Biddolph also
attended.
 

6)        
The Applicant explained that illegal working
encourages illegal migration which also encourages people to take
risks in entering the UK. In addition
the use of illegal workers meant that legitimate business owners
were being undermined whilst others (as in this case) undercut
rules. The Applicant further explained that they are an
intelligence led team acting on information received and do not
specifically target certain businesses. With reference to the
Application, the Applicant described the two visits which were
conducted, whereby four illegal workers were found to be working at
the Premises on 21 September 2019 (“the 2019
visit”) and a further illegal worker found to be working
at the Premises on 15 June 2023 (“the 2023
visit”). The Applicant was fined £40,000 following
the 2019 visit and £15,000 following the 2023 visit with both
fines paid in full. On the second occasion, the Applicant was said
to have found that the Licence Holder was intimidating and became
aggressive attempting to frustrate and prevent the Applicant from
carry out their interview / investigation. The Licence holder via
Mr Payne refuted that he was intimidating suggesting instead the
Applicant was shown to be intimidating in a video he had captured
and that the Licence Holder simply wanted the interview they were
conducting with the illegal worker to be conducted in the back of
the Premises to prevent interference with the business. The
Applicant argued that they would have expected a responsible
Licence Holder to comply with their investigation and to not hinder
it.
 

7)        
Given the seriousness of the breach and making reference to the Statutory Guidance, the
Applicant felt that civil penalties were not sufficient to prevent
the use of illegal workers. Their concern was that the there was a
suggestion of a two-tier approach being implemented by the Licence
Holder, whereby staff operating at the front of the Premises were
legal workers whereas staff operating at the back of the Premises
were illegal workers.
 

8)        
The Panel queried why the Applicant did not decide
to apply for a review hearing after the 2019 visit given this
appeared to be the more serious of the two offences and why it had
taken approximately six months to apply for a review following the
second visit? The Applicant confirmed the Licence Holder was issued
with a £40,000 fine at the time of the 2019 visit which was
paid in full, they were also aware that it was a time when
businesses were struggling and so thought the fine and the fact
that it was the first offence would be sufficient to deter such
breach in future. In relation to the current application for
review, this was simply a case of availability and for the
Applicant to gather and collate the relevant information before
seeking to apply for a review.
 

9)        
The Panel were aware that the submissions from the
Licence Holder state that the National Insurance numbers were
obtained from the illegal workers and queried whether this would be
sufficient to demonstrate a right to work within the UK. The
Applicant confirmed that holding a National Insurance number could
be misleading as some people may have a right to work for a limited
time frame where their stay is limited, however, if they were to
stay beyond that time limit then they would not have a right to
work at that point.
 

10)     
The Licence Holder’s representative, Mr Payne,
explained that despite suggestions of a system for checks not being
in place in 2019, there was a system in place where checks on
proposed workers right to work were carried out. Mr Payne added
that evidently the checks in 2019 were not sufficient and that a
more robust procedure has since been in place. In relation to the
2023 incident, the Licence Holder had taken copies of the worker
identified to be illegal and had retained a copy, although this
could no longer be located. The Licence Holder wrongly believed a
National Insurance number to be sufficient to show a right to work
and believes the relevant illegal worker found at the 2023 visit
had provided a false name. The Licence Holder also wrongly believed
a French passport to be sufficient and acknowledged that Brexit
would have likely made some changes to the working status of
someone holding a French passport. To the Panel’s somewhat
surprise, given the accountant’s statement of support, as per
his witness statement the Licence Holder suggested that National
Insurance numbers were provided to his accountant to then produce
payslips and to sort tax matters. The Licence Holder added new
starters are asked to provide either a P45 or P46 which is then
forwarded to his accountant. The suggestion that the accountant was
responsible for part of this process did not satisfy the Panel as
they believed that it is ultimately for a Licence Holder to ensure
compliance with legislation and the licensing
objectives.
 

11)     
Mr Payne also relayed that the Licence Holder was
regularly approached by people for employment and those who did not
have the right to work were turned away. The Panel were concerned
by this as it suggested the Premises was particularly known for
employing illegal workers, however, the Licence Holder clarified
many people approached him including legal workers for work
on a daily basis and that other
neighbouring businesses had expressed similar issues.
 

12)     
The Licence Holder stated that he had to re-mortgage
his flat to pay the penalty fines issued by the Applicant and that
the business was struggling as per many other businesses. In
particular, he could recall that at the time of the 2019 visit he
had seven employees of whom 4 were found to be illegal workers
whereas now he only has three staff members due to the decline in
business. 
 

13)     
The Panel questioned why the Licence Holder did not
have more robust measures in place following the 2019 visit given a
large fine had already been paid. The Licence Holder stated that
the individual found to be an illegal worker had sold himself to
the Licence Holder stating himself to be a chef and producing
photos to show the same. At the time the Licence Holder had been
sick suffering from covid and thinks it slipped his mind to fully
enquire and carry out checks. He reiterated that he is currently
just trying to keep the business afloat having had to remortgage
his flat to pay the fines.
 

14)     
The Panel further queried why the Licence Holder was
said to be paying below the minimum wage to the illegal workers.
The Licence Holder refuted this expressing that he paid his staff
50% above the minimum wage to retain them, he was aware of the
minimum wage and stated that staff were paid by bank transfer
through payslips obtained from his accountant and not paid in cash.
He further stated that most of his workers worked part time and
that was the reason it seemed from the witness statements produced
in the Application that staff were being paid below the minimum
wage as weekly figures. The Panel were not assured by the Licence
Holder’s suggestions given the witness statements produced
within the application contradicted this information. Moreover, the
Panel noted that the payslips provided as evidence in the Licence
Holder’s statement did not demonstrate the payments made to
workers at the time or prior to the Applicant’s visits and
would have expected such evidence to support the Licence
Holder’s claims. The Panel were also concerned that only one
Employer Checking Service (ECS) Notice was evidenced as carried out
prior to the date of the second visit with the suggestion that the
other’s simply coincided as being two days after the date of
the application for review by the Applicant questionable. Even if
the second checks dated 15 December 2023 were repeated checks upon
expiry of previous ones, the dates on those provided did not
demonstrate this. Moreover, the Panel were concerned that the
Application Registration Card of one of the illegal workers from
the 2019 visit shown on page 20 of the agenda clearly showed
‘No Work.’
 

15)     
The Objector, Councillor Biddolph, acknowledged that
her statement in support of the Licence Holder was made prematurely
and prior to reviewing the full report. She had therefore expressed
to the Licence Holder prior to the hearing that she could not
support him but did state that she found the Licence Holder to be
of good nature whenever they spoke and consistent in his version of
the events. In addition, she had visited the Premises and found the
suggestion of the Applicant’s two-tier approach to be
incorrect as the Premises is open with customers being able to see
through to the back. She had also met with staff and noted the chef
was both working in the kitchen and delivering food to the front.
Moreover, she was concerned by the affect this was having on the
Licence Holder and wanted the Panel to be aware of the difficulties
the hospitality industry was facing. 
 
16)     
Mr Payne highlighted options the Panel could take
following this hearing and proposed conditions that his client
would be willing to accept suggesting that adding such conditions
would be the most effective way to promote the licensing objectives
and prevent future breaches. Reference was also made to case law
(R. v Secretary of State for Health Ex p. Eastside Cheese Co [1999] 3 C.M.L.R. 123) in
which Mr Payne suggested that proportionality should be considered
whereby where there is a choice of measures / options that may be
taken, it should be the one which is least onerous which is
taken.
 
17)     
The conditions which were proposed by the Licence
Holder were as follows:
 
o  
The Premises Licence Holder must carry out, or to
arrange to be carried out, checks relating to the right to work in
accordance with the Home Office Guidance- ‘An Employers guide
to right to work checks’ in respect of all the employees who
are engaged to work at the premises, prior to the commencement of
their employment and shall take a copy of any identity or right to
work document that is used in the process of such
checks.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-to-work-checks-employers-guide/an-employers-guide-to-right-to-work-checks)
 
o  
Where a person is engaged to work at the premises
has a right to work that is a time limited, any contract of
employment shall not extend beyond the expiry of that limit. No
such contract of employment shall be renewed unless a further
satisfactory right to work check has been completed.
 
o  
In checking the identity of any person employed
to work at the premises, the licence holder shall have regard to
the Home Office Guidance “How to prove and verify
someone’s identity”.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/identity-proofing-and-verification-of-an-individual/how-to-prove-and-verify-someones-identity)
 
o  
Copies of any documents retained by the Premises
Licence Holder as a result of conducting
checks relating to the right to work, along with the date of
commencement and conclusion of employment, are to be stored
securely by the Premises Licence older at the premises for a period
of no less than six months after the person ceases to work at the
premises.
 

18)     
The Applicant considered that the conditions
suggested did not go far enough and that these were things a
responsible Licence Holder should be carrying out in any case
whereas the Licence Holder reiterated this would strengthen the
Licence to comply with legislation.
 

19)     
 The Panel considered the
Statutory Guidance which states:

“Crime and disorder

2.1        Licensing
authorities should look to the police as the main source of advice
on crime and disorder. They should also seek to involve the local
Community Safety Partnership (CSP).

 

…

 

2.6        The prevention of crime includes the prevention of
immigration crime including the prevention of illegal working in
licensed premises. Licensing authorities should work with Home
Office Immigration Enforcement, as well as the police, in respect
of these matters. Licence conditions that are considered
appropriate for the prevention of illegal working in licensed
premises might include requiring a premises licence holder to
undertake right to work checks on all staff employed at the
licensed premises or requiring that evidence of a right to work
check, either physical or digital (e.g. a copy of any document
checked as part of a right to work check or a clear copy of the
online right to work check) are retained at the licensed
premises.”

 

…
 

Home Office Immigration Enforcement
acting as a responsible authority

 

9.25     
The Immigration Act 2016 made the
Secretary of State a responsible authority in respect of premises
licensed to sell alcohol or late night
refreshment with effect from 6 April 2017. In effect this conveys
the role of responsible authority to Home Office Immigration
Enforcement who exercises the powers on the Secretary of
State’s behalf. When Immigration Enforcement exercises its
powers as a responsible authority it will do so in respect of the
prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective because it is
concerned with the prevention of illegal working or immigration
offences more broadly.

 

…

 

Powers of a licensing authority on the
determination of a review

 

11.16    The 2003 Act provides a range of powers for the
licensing authority which it may exercise on determining a review
where it considers them appropriate for the promotion of the
licensing objectives.

 

11.17    The licensing authority may decide that the review
does not require it to take any further steps appropriate to
promoting the licensing objectives. In addition, there is nothing
to prevent a licensing authority issuing an informal warning to the
licence holder and/or to recommend improvement within a particular
period of time. It is expected that
licensing authorities will regard such informal warnings as an
important mechanism for ensuring that the licensing objectives are
effectively promoted and that warnings should be issued in writing
to the licence holder.

 

11.18    However, where responsible authorities such as the
police or environmental health officers have already issued
warnings requiring improvement – either orally or in writing
– that have failed as part of their own stepped approach to
address concerns, licensing authorities should not merely repeat
that approach and should take this into account when considering
what further action is appropriate. Similarly, licensing
authorities may take into account any
civil immigration penalties which a licence holder has been
required to pay for employing an illegal worker.

 

11.19    Where the licensing authority considers that action
under its statutory powers is appropriate, it may take any of the
following steps:

• modify the conditions of the
premises licence (which includes adding new conditions or any
alteration or omission of an existing condition), for example, by
reducing the hours of opening or by requiring door supervisors at
particular times;

• exclude a licensable activity
from the scope of the licence, for example, to exclude the
performance of live music or playing of recorded music (where it is
not within the incidental live and recorded music
exemption);

• remove the designated premises
supervisor, for example, because they consider that the problems
are the result of poor management;

• suspend the licence for a period
not exceeding three months;

• revoke the licence.

 

11.20    In deciding which of these powers to invoke, it is
expected that licensing authorities should so far as possible seek to establish the cause or causes of
the concerns that the representations identify. The remedial action
taken should generally be directed at these causes and should
always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response to
address the causes of concern that instigated the
review.

 

11.21    For example, licensing authorities should be alive
to the possibility that the removal and replacement of the
designated premises supervisor may be sufficient to remedy a
problem where the cause of the identified problem directly relates
to poor management decisions made by that
individual.

 

11.22    Equally, it may emerge that poor management is a
direct reflection of poor company practice or policy and the mere removal of the designated
premises supervisor may be an inadequate response to the problems
presented. Indeed, where subsequent review hearings are generated,
it should be rare merely to remove a succession of designated
premises supervisors as this would be a clear indication of deeper
problems that impact upon the licensing objectives.

 

11.23    Licensing authorities should also note that
modifications of conditions and exclusions of licensable activities
may be imposed either permanently or for a temporary period of up
to three months. Temporary changes or suspension of the licence for
up to three months could impact on the business holding the licence
financially and would only be expected to be pursued as an
appropriate means of promoting the licensing objectives or
preventing illegal working. So, for instance, a licence could be
suspended for a weekend as a means of deterring the holder from
allowing the problems that gave rise to the review to happen again.
However, it will always be important that any detrimental financial
impact that may result from a licensing authority’s decision
is appropriate and proportionate to the promotion of the licensing
objectives and for the prevention of illegal working in licensed
premises. But where premises are found to be trading irresponsibly,
the licensing authority should not hesitate, where appropriate to
do so, to take tough action to tackle the problems at the premises
and, where other measures are deemed insufficient, to revoke the
licence.

 

Reviews arising in connection with
crime

11.24    A number
of reviews may
arise in connection with crime that is not directly connected with
licensable activities. For example, reviews may arise because of
drugs problems at the premises, money laundering by criminal gangs,
the sale of contraband or stolen goods, the sale of firearms, or
the sexual exploitation of children. Licensing authorities do not
have the power to judge the criminality or otherwise of any issue.
This is a matter for the courts. The licensing authority’s
role when determining such a review is not therefore to establish
the guilt or innocence of any individual but to ensure the
promotion of the crime prevention objective.

 

11.25    Reviews are part of the regulatory process
introduced by the 2003 Act and they are not part of criminal law
and procedure. There is, therefore, no reason why representations
giving rise to a review of a premises licence need be delayed
pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings. Some reviews will
arise after the conviction in the criminal courts of certain
individuals, but not all. In any case, it is for the licensing
authority to determine whether the problems associated with the
alleged crimes are taking place on the premises and affecting the
promotion of the licensing objectives. Where a review follows a
conviction, it would also not be for the licensing authority to
attempt to go beyond any finding by the courts, which should be
treated as a matter of undisputed evidence before
them.

 

11.26    Where the licensing authority is conducting a
review on the grounds that the premises have been used for criminal
purposes, its role is solely to determine what steps should be
taken in connection with the premises licence, for the promotion of
the crime prevention objective. It is important to recognise that
certain criminal activity or associated problems may be taking
place or have taken place despite the best efforts of the licence
holder and the staff working at the premises and despite full
compliance with the conditions attached to the licence. In such
circumstances, the licensing authority is still empowered to take
any appropriate steps to remedy the problems. The licensing
authority’s duty is to take steps with a view to the
promotion of the licensing objectives and the prevention of illegal
working in the interests of the wider community and not those of
the individual licence holder.

 

11.27    There is certain criminal activity that may arise
in connection with licensed premises which should be treated
particularly seriously. These are the use of the licensed
premises:

• for the sale and distribution of
drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the
laundering of the proceeds of drugs crime;

• for the sale and distribution of
illegal firearms;

• for the evasion of copyright in
respect of pirated or unlicensed films and music, which does
considerable damage to the industries affected;

• for the illegal purchase and
consumption of alcohol by minors which impacts on the health,
educational attainment, employment prospects and propensity for
crime of young people;

• for prostitution or the sale of
unlawful pornography;

• by organised groups of
paedophiles to groom children;

• as the base for the organisation
of criminal activity, particularly by gangs;

• for the organisation of racist
activity or the promotion of racist attacks;

• for employing a person who is
disqualified from that work by reason of their immigration status
in the UK;

• for unlawful gambling;
and

• for the sale or storage of
smuggled tobacco and alcohol.

 

11.28    It is envisaged that licensing authorities, the
police, the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement) and other law
enforcement agencies, which are responsible authorities, will use
the review procedures effectively to deter such activities and
crime. Where reviews arise and the licensing authority determines
that the crime prevention objective is being undermined through the
premises being used to further crimes, it is expected that
revocation of the licence – even in the first instance
– should be seriously considered.”
 

20)     
The Council’s Policy states the
following:
 
“54.
Each of the four licensing objectives are of equal importance and
therefore each needs to be considered with equal weight.
 
55. The
Council expects applicants to risk assess their proposals and put
forward measures aimed at promoting the licensing
objectives.
 
LP2 The
Four Licensing Objectives
 
1.
Prevention of Crime and Disorder
Whether the
proposal includes satisfactory measures to mitigate any risk of the
proposed operation making an unacceptable contribution to levels of
crime and disorder in the locality.
 
2. Public
Safety
Whether the
necessary and satisfactory risk assessments have been undertaken,
the management procedures put in place and the relevant
certification produced to demonstrate that the public will be kept
safe both within and in close proximity
to the premises.
 
3.
Prevention of Public Nuisance
Whether the
applicant has addressed the potential for nuisance arising from the
characteristics and style of the proposed activity and identified
the appropriate steps to reduce the risk of public nuisance
occurring.
 
4.
Protection of Children form Harm
Whether the
applicant has identified and addressed any risks with the aim of
protecting children from harm when on the premises or in close proximity to the
premises.”
 
 

21)     
The Council’s Policy at paragraph 115
states:
“The
Licensing Authority can exercise a range of powers when dealing
with a review (see S.182 guidance notes). In cases where the crime
prevention objective is being seriously undermined it is expected
that revocation of the premises licence, even in the first
instance, will be seriously considered.”
 
Decision
 

22)     
The Panel considered the options available to it, including adding
the conditions proposed by the Licence Holder. However, the Panel
determined that whilst the conditions would be beneficial to the
Licence, they were conditions otherwise expected to be complied
with by a responsible Licence Holder or anyone employing staff in a
business capacity irrespective of whether specified on the licence
or not. This is even more the case where the Licence
Holder had already been caught using illegal workers and had been
subject to a large fine. The Panel also considered that
removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor would not be
sufficient in accordance with paragraphs 11.20 to 11.22 of the
Statutory Guidance given it was evident the Licence Holder was
responsible for employing staff as well as other aspects of the
business.
 

23)     
With regards to the Statutory Guidance, the Panel noted that
paragraph 2.6 was clearly a preventive measure designed to prevent
such instances of breach of crime and disorder whilst in this
instance the Licence Holder was found to have already breached
this. Moreover, the Panel were concerned that this was the second
time the Licence Holder had been found to be employing illegal
workers. The suggestion of more robust procedures being in place
for checks was clearly insufficient and ought to have been in place
from the outset and particularly after the 2019 visit. The Licence
Holder was said to have been represented the time and the Panel
would expect that advice as to procedures that needed to be
followed would have been given, albeit as a responsible Licence
Holder, someone who should already be aware. The Panel noted that
ultimately, it is for a licence holder to ensure they are operating
in compliance with their licence and to propose measures to promote
the licensing objectives and tackle any issues.
 

24)     
Considering paragraph 11.27 of the Statutory Guidance
‘there is certain criminal activity that may arise in
connection with licensed premises which should be treated
particularly seriously’. This includes
‘employing a person who is
disqualified from that work by reason of their immigration status
in the UK.’ Further
considering 11.28 of the Statutory Guidance, the Panel notes that
‘it is expected that revocation of the licence –
even in the first instance – should be seriously
considered.’
 

25)     
The Panel acknowledged that fines had already been
paid and that the Licence Holder had suggested that employing the
illegal worker found at the premises in the 2023 visit was either a
mistake or one in which he had been misled by the employee. Whilst
the Panel were conscious that criminal liability was a
determination outside of the scope of the Licensing Hearing, they
did not find that the representations or evidence provided by the
Licence Holder supported the Licence Holder’s
claims.
 

26)     
It was evident to the Panel from the numerous
representations that the Premises is one which is clearly valued to
residents and customers. However, they also noted that many of the
representations did not seem to address the review of the licence
and the reason for the same and perhaps incorrectly only assumed
the premises licence was up for renewal. The Panel were
understanding of the Licence Holder’s financial position and
the slowdown in business but did not think this excused him from
breaching the licensing objectives by employing and potentially
exploiting illegal workers. The Statutory Guidance considers this a
serious breach and in accordance with the Council’s Policy, a
revocation even in the first instance – should seriously
considered. Given the Licence Holder was given some respite from an
application for review following the 2019 visit, to have repeated
such a breach demonstrated a serious concern and lack of regard to
the licensing objectives.
 

27)     
Paragraph 11.20 of the Statutory Guidance states
“The remedial action taken should generally be directed at
these causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and
proportionate response to address the causes of concern that
instigated the review.”
 

28)     
Having taken all submissions and representations
into account along with the Statutory Guidance and the
Council’s Licensing Policy, the Panel considered that there
had been a significant breach and undermining of the licensing
objectives, namely the prevention of crime and disorder. The use of
illegal workers and possible exploitation in being underpaid
against the National minimum wage was a clear breach of the
licensing objective and furthermore, this was a repeated
breach.
 

29)     
The Panel therefore decided that revoking the
licence was the appropriate and proportionate remedy in the
circumstances as a breach of the prevention of crime and disorder
objective was clear on two occasions.
 

30)     
The Licensing Panel has therefore decided to
REVOKE the premises licence.
 
Right to Appeal
 

31)     
Any party aggrieved with the
decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee on one or more grounds
set out in Schedule 5 of Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the
local Magistrate’s Court within 21 days of notification of
this decision.