Council under fire in test case
The pub trade has attacked a council in the High Court for undermining the Licensing Act.
The Publican was at the Royal Courts of Justice this week to hear solicitor David Matthias state that Canterbury City Council's over-prescriptive policy "flies in the face of the light touch of bureaucracy".
He added: "This is all leading to a highly bureaucratic regime, which is the opposite of what Parliament intended. It's a supreme irony that this scheme is at risk of being subverted by local authorities into a system that requires a far heavier touch than ever existed before."
The case is the latest stage of the industry's fight against councils slapping unfair demands on pubs under the Act.
The British Beer & Pub Association, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and the BII hope the case will act as a precedent to force other councils to back down from policies which they believe have over-stepped the mark.
Doncaster Council agreed last month to amend its policy following the threat of action, while talks are now going on with Gloucester Council.
Mr Matthias drew the court's attention to numerous elements of Canterbury's policy which he claimed were illegal.
The council's policy asked for licensees to state the maximum number of people they would have in their pub at any one time, he said.
But Mr Matthias argued it was not necessary to give this information under the terms of the Act and licensees would be leaving themselves open to prosecution if they stated a figure.
"If on a particular day this figure was exceeded there is the chance a licensing officer could come in and do a head count that could lead to a fine or six months imprisonment," said Mr Matthias.
He criticised the council's policy for "words that have the effect of dictating what an applicant should put in his form".
It was, however, brought to the attention of the court that Canterbury Council has made a bid for an 11th hour get-out by issuing an addition to its original policy.
But Mr Matthias said the trade was pushing ahead with its attempt to have the whole policy re-examined.
As this article was posted Canterbury Council had yet to state its case to the court.
