Trade fury caused by loophole in law

Negative reaction to legal decision prompts calls for change in the law

The news that pubs are not given the same legal protection as homes has been greeted with shock and anger by the trade (See a href="/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=4020&d=32&h=42&f=23&dateformat=%o-%B-%Y"Law says pubs are not homes (6 September 2001)).

Last week a loophole in the law was revealed that means a burglar who breaks into a pub is given a more lenient punishment - often community service instead of custody - than one who breaks into a private home.

Under the law a pub is currently considered to be commercial premises, even if the licensee's family lives in the same building.

Licensees have called for a change in the law after the news.

John Madden, secretary of the Guild of Master Victuallers, said he would like to see the law changed to protect publicans.

"We would consider pubs to be our members' homes and the law should remember there is a difference between pubs and other commercial property because of this fact," he said. "I think this is an anomaly in the law and there should be a move to look at this with a view to changing the definition of commercial premises to exclude pubs."

The loophole came to light after a burglar broke into the Crown Inn in Macclesfield, Cheshire.

He tried, but failed, to gain access to the licensee's accommodation through a locked door, resulting in him only being penalised for entering commercial premises.

Macclesfield magistrates acted according to the letter of the law, ignoring the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service, and the burglar walked free from court after escaping custody and instead being sentenced to 100 hours community service.

The Crown Inn's licensee and his family have been left feeling vulnerable and at risk of attack in their own home.

The little-known loophole led to several comments on thePublican.com.

David Gemmell pointed out that in Scotland the law requires a more definite difference between the pub and the licensee's home.

Publicans are not allowed an adjoining door between their living accommodation and the pub and must leave and enter the two properties by separate entrances.

Prospective publican Nigel Silverthorn said: "In this case I think the Scottish law may have it right in totally separating the property into commercial and residential to give the best protection."

But Pamela Watts, one of the many English licensees who is required to live on site as a condition of her licence, said: "In our case there is not a locked door between the commercial premises and the house. We do not have a separate entrance to our flat and there is no way we can lock the bars and make our home secure."