Licensing Review - when is the crime prevention objective engaged?

Cornerstone Barristers (Philip Kolvin) are reporting a significant High Court judgment which establishes that it is not necessary for a prosecution to be brought in order for the crime prevention objective to be engaged.  In an earlier hearing in the matter the licensee had argued that as he had not been prosecuted for alleged offences, the crime prevention licensing objective was not engaged.  The High Court have scotched this suggestion and emphatically so.

The case involved the employment of an illegal worker and the High Court reinstated the decision to revoke the premises licence.

The facts in brief were these.  Zara’s restaurant traded in East Lindsey. The owner and licensee was a Mr. Hanif. After a raid by the Immigration Authorities it was discovered that Mr. Hanif was employing an illegal worker.

The Police brought review proceedings and the Licensing Authority revoked the premises licence. Mr. Hanif appealed. At the appeal, it was argued that, since Mr. Hanif had not been prosecuted for employing an illegal worker under section 21 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, but had merely been given a civil penalty under section 15 of that legislation, the crime prevention objective was not engaged.  At the hearing of the magistrates’ appeal, it was established that Mr. Hanif had employed the illegal worker without paperwork showing a right to work in the UK, had paid him cash in hand, paid him less than the minimum wage, did not keep or maintain PAYE records and that, while he had deducted tax from the worker’s salary, he failed to account to the HMRC for the tax deducted.  However notwithstanding all this, the District Judge held that because prosecution proceedings had not been brought, and no crime had been reported, the crime prevention objective was not engaged; and that in any event the failure to pay the minimum wage had not been the main basis of the Licensing Authority’s decision.

The Council appealed by way of case stated. It argued that it is not necessary for a crime to have been reported, prosecuted or established in a court of law in order for the crime prevention objective to be engaged. The licensing objectives are prospective, and are concerned with the avoidance of harm in the future. The High Court accepted all of the Council’s arguments. In their view, there was clear evidence of the commission of criminal offences, both in relation to the non-payment of the minimum wage and also tax evasion. As for the offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker, it was considered that, based on the fact that the employee could not provide the requisite paperwork, a national insurance number or a tax code,  the clear inference was that Mr. Hanif well knew that he was employing an illegal worker. A deterrent approach was justified on the facts.