Damocles' sword threatens hosts
During the passage of the new Licensing Act there was much talk about "accountability" — that the actions of the authorities should be monitored and approved by Joe Public, so that they did their job properly.
Well, I did not really believe it then, and I certainly do not now. What seems to happen is that various police forces and local authorities are taking their own ideas and just going ahead, without any real check on what they are doing.
Oldham has its queuing system (who thought that up?). Bexley had premises "agreeing" to stop selling to under-25s at weekends. Now Derby police are asking licensees for £300 for training courses for their staff, as an alternative to being called in for review on as-yet unspecified charges of mismanagement.
While the police may see this as proactive — and as usual express surprise that anyone should see it as anything other than beneficial — it seems to me that circumventing the law in this way, and using the very thinly veiled threat of legal action as the alternative, is not a practice that should be encouraged. It is as if the police feel that their judgment, rather than the courts', should prevail.
This was an issue under the old law. The simple fact was that licensing sessions were a chance for magistrates to hear the views of each side. The police were there as witnesses, and if they had a problem with one or other premises, they could raise their objections formally with the bench. But it was the bench who would decide the issues: the police were there as witnesses.
The danger in allowing the police too much leeway in "deciding" what is a suitable remedy for a licensing situation is that it soon becomes established. After that, all new entrants to the licensed trade find out that their attendance at courses, or adherence to certain conditions, is a requirement of their
tenure of the licence. Although it has no legal basis, the understanding with the police is ingrained in the system.
There is no doubt that many licensees (and operating companies) toe the line because they are fearful of the effect of "rubbing the police up the wrong way". Some do not, but it is a common reaction, especially where subtle threats are around. No-one, especially in the licensed trade at present, wants to sit under the sword of Damocles, with the possibility of losing their licence and their business.
Q&A
Taking off-sales home
Q. Last week I was visited by our local police licensing officer who commented that people had been seen leaving our pub some time after the official terminal on our premises licence. I told him that we do not sell later, but he said they were taking alcohol from the premises, which is illegal. Is this true?
A. This issue has arisen several times. It appears to be a hangover from the old law, and may well be inaccurate, unless the licence has a specific restriction imposed as a condition.
The rule under the 1964 Act was that alcohol could not be taken from the premises except during the permitted hours, or during "drinking-up time". That rule has not been replicated in the new Act, because there is technically no specific drinking-up time. Persons may leave the premises at a variety of times, and may take off-sale purchases with them, as long as they have been supplied during the hours contained on the licence.
This particular mistake will persist while some councils still hold to the view that drinking-up time and all its rules and regulations carry over from the old law (as so-called "embedded restrictions"). They will have been imposed on the converted licence at transition, even if there was no hearing.
However, even if this set of rules was sought to be applied, the taking of alcohol from the premises is not in itself illegal under the licensing laws, so it would not be possible to launch a prosecution against you in this instance.
There could conceivably be action for breach of a condition or even a review of the licence, but only if some contravention of the licensing objectives could be shown.
Notice not received
Q. We sent in an application for a temporary event notice for a special event next week and still have not had the signed form back. The council licensing people say they sent it, but they do not use recorded delivery. How do we stand?
A. This is a technical issue only.
It is clear that the police did not object, having also been served with the notice. The council has had the notice, or it would not be in a position to say it has sent it back. The only obligation is for you to send it in duplicate and then for the council to send back an acknowledgment. If it fails to turn up, it does not jeopardise the event — that would be totally unreasonable.
Can you not ask the council for a copy of the signed notice? It has your original in the office and could easily pop another one in the post. There is no official reason why this could not be done, but of course I do not know the attitude of your local council officers to this kind of request.
If one is not sent, and a police officer calls to check during the event, you should explain the position to him and show him any correspondence. He cannot stop the event in those circumstances.
Copy on premises
Q. Is it a requirement to keep the actual licence on display somewhere? We have the "summary" posted by the entrance door.
A. You do not have to keep the actual licence on display, but it must be kept on the premises for production if a police or licensing officer asks to see it.
The whole reason for the extra paperwork of having a licence summary as well as the premises licence was that the summary would give basic details and must be displayed at all times. However, people have tended to forget that the actual full licence, or a duly authorised copy, must be retained by the person operating the premises, even
if they are not the premises licence holder themselves (eg when the brewery or operating company is the holder).
