Tackling problem premises

Referee iStock 000006306507XSmall 146x219Paddy Whur provides a practical example of the use of the summary expedited review to tackle problem premises.

We have recently completed a Summary Expedited Review for Dorset Police against problem premises in Bournemouth known as Dusk Till Dawn. The mechanics of the review brought in by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 under Section 53A of the Licensing Act proved to be particularly practical and user friendly.

A few reminders

  • Summary expedited reviews only apply where a Premises Licence authorises the sale of alcohol.
  • They do not apply in respect of other Premises Licences.
  • They do not apply to a Club Premises Certificate.
  • "The Police to trigger a fast track process to review a Premises Licence when the Police consider that the premises are associated with serious crime or serious disorder (or both)".
  • The Licensing Authority will respond by taking interim steps quickly, where appropriate, pending a full review.
  • A superintendent needs to issue a certificate stating that in his/her opinion the premises are associated with serious crime or serious disorder (or both).
  • Serious crime is defined in Section 81(3)(a) and (b) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000).
  • (a) that the conduct constitutes an offence for which a person 21 years of age or over with no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for three or more years or;
  • (b) that the conduct involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose.
  • Serious disorder – there is no definitive list of behaviours that constitute serious disorder and the matter is one for judgement by the local police.

The Process

Once an application with a supporting Superintendent’s Certificate is lodged at the Licensing Authority, then there is a duty on the authority to determine what interim steps are appropriate in the circumstances within a 48-hour time period. This does not need to be a formally constituted hearing and can even, in the most extreme circumstances, be dealt with by the Licensing Sub-Committee members remotely.

That being the case there is an ability to exclude the Premise Licence holder from the initial interim steps hearing if the circumstances so require.

The Premise Licence holder, even if the interim steps measure is to suspend the Premises Licence without him potentially having notice of the hearing, has the ability to make representations against those interim steps by lodging an application on the authority. If that is undertaken, then the authority must determine those representations against the interim steps in a properly constituted licensing hearing by a Sub-Committee. This hearing must take place within 48 hours of the application.

The final review, in contrast to a standard review, must be concluded within 28 days from receipt of the application at the authority. The powers of the authority are the same as those in a standard review.

Interim steps

What happens to the interim steps if the Premises Licence Holder appeals the decision of the Review?

This has so far only been tested in the Magistrates' Court in the case of Oates. There has not been a binding High Court decision on the issue.

In Oates the interim steps were to suspend the premises licence and the final decision of the Review was that the licence should have additional conditions attached to it. The Premises Licence Holder appealed the imposition of some of those conditions and the Police took the view that the position resorted back to the position on the interim steps i.e. the Premises Licence was suspended.

They relied on para 6.2 of the DCMS Guidance document on Summary Reviews which states: "The decision of the licensing authority, following the review hearing, will not have effect until the end of the period allowed for appeal, or until the appeal is disposed of. Any interim steps taken will remain in force over these periods".

The Court in Oates amplified what we have always said: the drafting of this part of the legislation is poor and needs amending. It is perhaps a shame that the Home Office did not express their view in the April 2012 version of the Section 182 Guidance document which remains silent on the point. The court went on to adjudicate in favour of the Premises Licence Holder stating that it could not be the wish of Parliament for the premises to revert back to the suspension, and remain closed, whilst the Appellate court considered whether the conditions attached were necessary and proportionate – the test at that time.

What happens with the Bournemouth case is at odds with this position in that the suspension at the time of the interim steps was still in place at the time of the review when the Authority revoked the licence. Surely it can be equally argued that Parliament could not have intended that a Licensing Authority suspends the licence at the interim steps hearing, revokes the licence at the final review and the next day it can reopen until the 22nd day after the review i.e. the time for an appeal or until an appeal is disposed of?

It seems absurd that this would be the intention with major problem premises associated with criminal activities  and the subject of significant Police resource and ongoing prosecutions.

We will of course advise if there are any further developments as in this case we have advised the police that the premises should remain closed pending any appeal.

Paddy Whur is a partner at Woods Whur. He can be contacted on 0113 234 3055 or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..