Foreign satellite footie still illegal

No reader of the Morning Advertiser​ can have failed to pick up the continuing saga of foreign satellite transmissions of premiership football. It follows that none of those readers can be unaware that the use of these satellite transmissions and the decoders has been held to be illegal in numerous cases.

The ones that have not been successful, as recent examples have shown, is where licensees have managed to persuade the magistrates that they did not know the equipment was illegal and, therefore, were not acting dishonestly. In one case, they did this by showing a brochure from the alternative supplier, which presumably did not mention the fact that there would be a copyright infringement. Why would they?

I continue to receive requests from readers on this very point — there is clearly a large group who find Sky charges expensive and would very much like there to be a legal alternative that is cheaper. As hope springs eternal, most of them would like to believe that the next one along has somehow found a loophole and has produced a legal system.

But let us be clear: the failure of convictions in these cases is not based on a change in the law or the sudden legality of an incoming system. It is simply that not enough evidence of dishonesty has been proved to the satisfaction of the bench.

The mere fact of showing another system is not technically enough; the prosecution has to show that there was dishonesty involved. If the licensee already knew or had been told that using another supplier was illegal — or in some cases had been formally warned — then he could not subsequently claim innocence.

But if you do not read the trade press and you have never previously been visited by the enforcement agency, or Sky, or the police, I suppose it is conceivable that you might be fooled into thinking that the glossy brochure told the truth and that the Albanian system was a legal alternative to Sky Sports in the UK.

Certainly, that is what you are going to say if you are hauled up into court.

The fact that the lawyer involved is the same one who is involved in the Karen Murphy case (which is still to find a hearing date in Europe) might offer a clue that this is not an isolated incident, however, and that there may well be others who will join the hermits of Chesterfield in protesting that they thought it was legal.

Q&A​

Liability for others​

Q.​ I am currently the designated premises supervisor (DPS) of a pub that I own and also DPS of a council-owned venue for functions where I lease the bar. The council has started doing under-18 discos for which no bar is required, so I am not present and no sales are made. However, I have been told that the kids are sneaking in alcohol to mix with pop that is on sale there by the people renting the hall. Am I liable in any way if there are problems or underage drinking?

A.​ Good question. Although at first sight readers will undoubtedly assume that you cannot be held responsible, it is not quite that simple.

Because you are named as the DPS (and not simply catering for functions by means of temporary event notices) the hall in question must be licensed, and therefore becomes "licensed premises" under the Act. This means that it is an offence for any individual under 18 to consume alcohol there — and they clearly do it knowingly, as the Act says. The time of this consumption is not relevant and is not stated, so one has to assume that it is a general prohibition.

As a result, there is a further obligation on certain persons not "knowingly" to allow the consumption of alcohol on those premises by persons under 18. The persons in question are not necessarily those who hold a licence, but are described as those "…who work at the premises in a capacity, whether paid or unpaid, which authorises (them) to prevent the consumption…"

Your response, should there be any query of you as DPS, is that you were not present, were not running or managing the premises or the bar at that time and, therefore, would lack the necessary "knowledge" for the commission of an offence. However, as DPS you have certain overall responsibilities and you now know that this may be taking place, so it is appropriate for you to take action, which includes formally warning the council that this practice is illegal and that persons running these events could find themselves facing prosecution, with a fine of up to £5,000.

Is minor variation needed?​

Q.​ We recently had a reason to look at the conditions on our premises licence, which was reissued last year when I came in as DPS. We have now found a condition regarding access that was not on the previous licence at all and has never been discussed. When we contacted the licensing authority they said we would have to apply for a minor variation and advertise etc. Is this right?

A.​ If this is a transcription error, then there is no requirement to go through the process of applying for a minor variation. It is clearly a mistake by the authority, which they should rectify.

Unfortunately, some local authority officers take a strict line on such matters and would say that because it is now incorporated in your licence, the only way it can be removed is by a legal process. This is not right: an error made in transcription of the licence does not require a variation, because it does not legally form part of the licence in the first place.

Stick to your guns. When they check back, they will undoubtedly find the error. However, they may seek to charge you a fee for the amendment!

Water on the menu​

Q.​ I notice there is to be an obligation to provide drinking water. We have that already on our licence. Will it be changed in April?

A.​ If the Government condition is the same as yours, or more all-embracing, then your current condition will cease to have effect (eg if it's only at specified times at present). You will not, however, need to have your licence amended.