Legal advice: In the spirit of the law?

Hearings are still weighted in authorities' favour.

By David Clifton of thePublican.com's team of legal experts from London solicitors Joelson Wilson.​

One of the much-trumpeted potential benefits of the forthcoming new licensing regime has been that in the absence of representations (the new word for objections), or if all parties are agreed, applications can be dealt with administratively without a hearing.

That said, it is already clear that police forces and local authority offices are flexing their muscles. They see the Act as an opportunity for a clampdown on what they perceive to be troublesome pubs and other licensed premises. The signs are that we can expect spotchecks on such premises before the transitional period starts next February to establish, for example, whether adequate risk assessments have been conducted ahead of the new Act.

Whether such checks are justified in the absence of any intention to apply for variation during the transitional period is open to question. I anticipate we shall see a number of surprising police objections to conversion. The new Act also encourages local residents to play a more proactive role in the licensing process. The review process is an obvious example of this. Contested licensing hearings will, I believe, involve as much time, preparation, legal (and other associated) costs as previously. The government has requested views on the proposed procedures for hearings to be forwarded by November 10 as set out in its consultation document. These can be accessed on the website of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS). You may have views on the following points:

• It is proposed that the licensing authority should have up to eight weeks from the date of application to hold a hearing on a new premises licence or for variation other than to change the designated premises supervisor. It is unclear how this will account for witness availability - witnesses will have to be identified in advance of the hearing - and even lawyers' attendance.
• The parties are only required to say whether they consider a hearing is necessary and whether they will attend just prior to the hearing. Why leave it so late?
• Objectors will be permitted to withdraw their representations as late as 24 hours before the hearing. This may prove to be a charter for delay, leading to unwarranted expense for operators
• An absent objector will still be entitled to have his representations considered by the licensing authority providing the hearing is not adjourned "in the public interest" because of his absence. It may be more appropriate for lesser weight to be given to such representations in such circumstances
• The parties are to be allowed an equal maximum period of time (not specified in the consultation document) in which to present their case but in most aspects the licensing authority will be able to determine its own procedure. So much then for consistency!