Going beyond the law's intentions?

Far be it from me to jump to conclusions, but it may be that sometimes the police use the provisions of the Licensing Act in a slightly dubious way.

I refer to the summary review of a premises licence recently, on the back of an (admittedly) unpleasant assault that took place outside a pub, the landlady of which was stripped of her role as designated premises supervisor (DPS)​ as a result.

It would appear that the basis of this review was that she had opened early for some football supporters, outside the terms of her premises licence. The assault, as it happened, took place late the same evening, not during the alleged licensing infringement.

Now the wording of the Act here is that in order to obtain a 'summary review', you need a certificate from a superintendent or above that it is his opinion "that the premises are associated with serious crime or serious disorder or both".

A single incident of two people having an argument and subsequently a fight outside a pub does not, I submit, come within that association. It can happen anywhere. Even more so, opening early to cater for a group of supporters off to a match, while reprehensible, is not a 'serious crime' in anyone's book.

It may be that there have been other incidents and other instances of disorder, and they are connected with the running of the pub. But on the bare facts, we have another example of going beyond the intention of the law, and it will probably not be the last time.

There is also the point that the DPS can, in some cases, be the sacrificial lamb in order to compel the operator to tighten up the management.

This is why I always recommend that in any hearing or review the DPS should be separately represented, so his or her views and pleadings can be properly put to the committee.

So many times the buck has been passed by the operators when it probably is not entirely the fault of the DPS, or the actual 'crime' is overplayed.

It is easier for the operator to hold his hands up and suggest a change of management as a convenient solution for the committee, with the consequent loss of a livelihood.

Whether this is fair or not is open to question. But the fact that the police ask for such a change should not be a complete reason without the committee examining the full facts of the review and its causes.