The numbers game

Andy Woods looks at the increasing reliance by responsible authorities on numerical statistics and argues that these must be subject to a comprehensive examination for them to be relevant in licensing hearings.

Since the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003 in November 2005 and in particular since the revised Guidance issued by the Secretary of State last year, an increasing number of responsible authorities are using numerical statistics to bring review applications or to arrange meetings with operators with a view to improving the statistics.

We will have all come across in the last 12 months differing types of numerical statistics including a "top 10" and in some circumstances "top 50". These lists often show the top addresses defined as licensed premises where a incident has been recorded and the majority of lists appear to be simply based on numbers.

I have no doubt that in the wider approach to policing in 2013 these statistics can be a useful indicator. The statistics may, for example, show that there is a significant number of mobile phone thefts or "credit card shoulder surfing" or alternatively may show that a particular address is the centre point of an area in which incidents are recorded.

There is no reason why these statistics cannot be used as part of an examination of the particular licensed premises as long as full disclosure of information around the statistics is provided to the operator. There are obvious reasons why licensing authorities should be very careful when relying on statistics alone:

1. The incident recorded may in fact not be a crime. Someone who loses their mobile phone may for insurance purposes choose to report the loss of the phone as a theft.
2. The particular address used on the incident report may only be an indicator of the vicinity in which the incident occurred and does not necessarily mean that the incident occurred at that address. If someone is walking past Leicester Square Tube Station and is assaulted the incident will be recorded as an incident at Leicester Square Tube Station whether or not the victim or assailant had ever been in the Tube Station.
3. The incident may in fact not be an incident at all. It may be that upon further examination the caller exaggerated or made up the incident (perhaps a domestic dispute).
4. The address referred to and perhaps at number 1 on the list may be by far the most populated address in the area. Should for example Leicester Square Tube Station with its millions of passengers be fairly brandished at number 1, as compared to the small News Agency next door which may only have a few customers.

I deliberately used non-licensed premises in the examples above to highlight the difficulties in attributing statistics to particular addresses and whilst the above four points are all examples of the dangers in applying these statistics without supporting information we should all accept that statistics can be a useful tool in the licensing process. If, for example, a particular premises has a high number of assaults in the premises, which will be evidenced by the CCTV, then there is no reason why these statistics cannot be used.

One of the greatest gripes I come across from operators is the reliance on statistics relating to mobile phone theft. In the majority of premises mobile phone theft will be by far the highest recorded type of incident at those premises. There is, however, no doubt that a significant number of these mobile phone incidents relate to younger people leaving or losing their phone on a night out but then reporting the loss as a theft so as to be able to make a claim on an insurance policy or indeed so as to avoid significant grief from parents. I have been involved in a number of cases where there have been detailed discussions on this point and if we do not clarify this in the near future there will be a leading case before an Appeal Court or even the High Court which makes a ruling on this point.

I was interested to read Westminster Police’s written note to operators in January 2013 about this point. The first paragraph is as follows: "As part of Westminster’s activities on driving down crime in the Borough it has become apparent that some of the mobile phones that have been reported as stolen have in fact been left in premises such as yours without the person realising".

Operators have for several years argued that mobile phone incidents should not be recorded as incidents against the premises. Even if the mobile phone is stolen at the premises, it is extremely difficult to see what the operator could do to promote the licensing objectives and prevent the theft of the phone but it is equally difficult to see why licensed premises should be any different from other premises, such as, Primark in Leicester Square. I have no doubt that the greatest number of mobile phone incidents whether lost phones or stolen phones occur at the places which have the most people, such as Leicester Square Tube Station, the British Museum etc etc.

I do not argue that numerical statistics are wholly irrelevant and clearly away from the licensing system they give the Police a useful indication of where incidents are reported. When however we are talking about potential sanctions against licensed premises or even the worst case scenario a closure of those premises licensing authorities must allow for a detailed examination of these statistics and must consider the above four points when deciding the relevance of these statistics at licensing hearings.

Andy Woods is a partner in 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..