'Ban the Thug' Act weakened by new Bill - Peter Coulson

Meeting my old friend Harry Shindler, former general secretary of the National Association of Licensed House Managers (NALHM) at this year's BII lunch, reminded me of the efforts he made to put the "Ban the Thug" Act on the statute book, back in 1980.

It is about to be repealed, to be replaced by provisions in the new Violent Crime Reduction Bill, currently before Parliament. This Bill will also introduce the controversial alcohol disorder zones - which some feel will put a blight on city centres that adopt the scheme.

However, I am a little concerned that in their haste to link new powers entirely with alcohol, the Government has in fact weakened the "Ban the Thug" provisions in an unexpected way.

Under the existing law, a banning order can be made against anyone who threatens or uses violence on licensed premises. This can take many forms and can occur at different times and in different situations. The purpose of the old Act was to protect licensees from dangerous and/or vindictive people and to ensure that any ban would have legal backing.

But the new law requires slightly more. A drinking banning order may only be made in circumstances where it is shown that the person has "engaged in criminal or disorderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol."

Knowing how carefully the police sometimes tread on these issues, and how there have been times when the existing provisions have been ignored or sidelined, I am concerned that the focus of the law has changed. Instead of protecting the licensee, the law now concentrates on the subject of alcohol itself.

Let us take a well-known scenario - when a licensee who is in a Pubwatch or similar scheme, knows that a person is the subject of an unofficial ban by local pubs. He refuses service to that individual, or tells him that he is not welcome. He has not served a drink and the individual has not consumed any alcohol, but still lashes out. According to my reading, that would be enough under the old law, but is insufficient under the new provisions.

Now, it is not the violence which is an issue, but the drink. Admittedly, a large percentage of the violent acts committed on licensed premises can be related to the consumption of alcohol, but not in every case. A refusal to serve - the licensee's right - is not protected under the new law.

The other element which concerns me is the fact that this is a much more general provision. The only relevance to licensed premises is the effect of the banning order. The offence for which the person is charged can take place anywhere, not just on licensed premises.

I am sure that there are going to be numerous examples where a drinking banning order is made that may be unknown to bar staff, because the Bill at present appears not to make any provision for the publication of banning orders.

Admittedly, there is no offence of serving someone who is the subject of a banning order, as there is under the old "black list" provisions for habitual drunkards. It is up to the police or the local authority to pursue those who breach an order and deal with them through the courts.

Banning orders also last for a specified time, not less than two months or greater than two years. And, of course, an order can be made in relation to a number of premises. In fact, there is no reference to specific individual premises as there was under the Ban the Thug Act.

Harry's Act put the landlord in the spotlight. The new law may not quite have the same effect.