Police policy for licensing

It was interesting to see the views of the Chief Constable of Durham, Jon Stoddard, who is the new lead on licensing for ACPO, the chief police officers' association. As such, he has an influence on Government policy but, as past incumbents have found, not an entirely persuasive one.

The headline comment was that the link between minimum pricing and violence is not yet convincing, but more revealing is his general view that pubs and other venues should be judged on the level of risk they present, and that action should be targeted, not global.

This, of course, is in direct contradiction to the attitude of the Home Office under the previous administration, when it introduced mandatory conditions applying to everyone, regardless of risk or likelihood of trouble. Comments at the time showed a complete disregard of the principles of proportionality or reasonableness, and actions in Manchester, about which I commented last week, show just how dangerous it is to put such badly-drafted and potentially lethal conditions in the hands of zealous local government officers.

But it should not be forgotten that the police are still under the general control of the Home Office and it was as a result of guidance issued by that department that pubs were urged to comply with a set of fairly onerous conditions if they were screening World Cup matches.

Because of the structure of policing in this country, forces may adopt a different approach on the ground in different areas, so advice may given in one town, while a "contract" may be issued in another. One theme that tends to run through the authoritarian approach to licensing and the police often adopt is "if you do not toe the line, we may need to consider reviewing your licence", which however you look at it is a form of threat.

Challenge​

Whether they can review a licence at will is, of course, open to challenge, but at the time the hapless licensee is not in a position to argue. Legal advisors in several areas have stood firm on this, fortunately, and the police have qualified their stance as a result. But it still happens fairly regularly.

I hope Mr Stoddard will follow the previously-expressed views of one of his high-profile colleagues, who said to the Morning Advertiser​ that the police already possessed enough powers to deal with problem pubs and more onerous legislation was not required.

When it comes to the promised review of the Licensing Act, the last thing that is needed are more penalties and punishments. If the Government follows the chief constable's general thrust, it will try to ensure that any revisions follow the general principle of being both targeted and proportionate.

The role of lead on licensing within the senior ranks of the police is to advise Government on the practicalities of what they propose in legislation. Given the current climate for legislation through political expediency rather than knowledge of the subject, the input from Mr Stoddard and his ilk is vital.

Alas, in the past legislators have chosen to ignore such advice from the wings, on the basis that the police will just have to get on with it as best they can. There is no doubt that alcohol and violence will still be high on the agenda when the new capitation eventually finds its feet, but it will be important that any attempts to combat the real problems of this link can be differentiated from the licensing laws themselves, which are there to serve an administrative role rather than a punitive one.