It all started with a debate over whether it was legal to circulate photos of banned thugs under the previous legislation. The police have no obligation to provide such ID, even where a banning order has been made. The legislation is entirely silent on the point.
They did have a duty to provide a description where a person was ‘blacklisted’ under the 1902 Licensing Act, but this has
now gone.
However, where a person has not been made the subject of any order but has been causing problems for one licensee, circulating such information informally among others in the trade is not illegal.
But it has to be approached with some care, to avoid defamation or allegations of victimisation. Any licensee, as I constantly remind you, has a right to refuse service to an individual and it is not necessary to show that they have committed any offence.
There would be some justification in imposing such a ban where the person had been convicted of violence but had not been made the subject of an exclusion order.
However, great care must be taken to ascertain the facts accurately, in order to prevent any allegations of defamation against an innocent person.
A collective agreement to ‘ban’ a troublemaker is perfectly within a group’s rights, as long as the agreement is purely informal and does not form part of a police or local authority scheme.
You should note that a police officer is obliged to assist a licensee in ejecting such a person who does not wish the ban to be imposed and causes further trouble at the bar. This power is included in the Licensing Act.
It should be remembered that the making of a banning order is an optional recourse for the courts and is not automatic in every case.
It may be that the bench, or the Crown Court, thinks an order is unworkable or inappropriate, particularly where it is shown that the offence was out of character. It is not possible to compel a court to make the order. It is entirely at its discretion.
Related Forum comments