Problematic three strikes law

News that a Northampton pub has fallen foul of the "three strikes" law with regard to under-age sales brings me back to the warning I gave at the time the new measure was announced.

The problem is that the eventual action is taken against the holder of the premises licence alone, because it can result in suspension of the licence. It is, therefore, highly likely that the person or company suffering this penalty was not immediately aware that it was a likely outcome.

For example, if a fixed penalty notice is issued to a member of bar staff or even the Designated Premises Supervisor as a result of a sting operation, there is no requirement that this action must be communicated by the police to the premises licence holder. If the actual recipient of the notice keeps quiet about it, the operating company may not even know that any action has been taken.

Remember - there is no requirement for an actual prosecution or conviction to count as one of the three. All the police have to show is that there have been three examples of under-age sales at the location, not necessarily carried out by the same person. Because of this, the operating company itself, as holders of the licence, cannot plead any "due diligence" defence, because it is not available at that time. And when it comes to the three-strikes prosecution, it is too late to re-visit these other offences, which have already been recorded by the police.

Some companies make it an employment issue by insisting that staff relate all incidents of this nature as an obligation of their employment. But if they fail to do so, through fear of losing their job, the company is in a blind alley. It will rely on the police coming to its aid, so to speak, by warning those employees directly that they are on two strikes out of three.

But how many forces will do that? Perhaps this is another example where it may pay to have a closer working relationship with the boys in blue, rather than staying too far away from the action.