Put on probation

Is probation an option for concluding a review of a premises licence? Paddy Whur examines whether this is possible.

We were recently instructed by a nightclub owner to defend review proceedings brought against the largest venue in the town where he operated.

The Police had brought the review against the premises licence due to a high level of crime and anti-social behaviour being attributed to the venue. Shortly prior to the review being launched a new management team had been put in place at the unit and there was, shortly after the review was launched, a technical change in the ownership of the unit. No other representations were received during the notice period running up to the hearing for the review and in meetings between ourselves and the Police prior to the hearing, the Police held the view that management controls had improved dramatically and there was a commensurate fall in offences relating to the premises. The Police held the view that if this improvement were maintained then they would require no further action for the premises i.e. no additional conditions, removal of licensable activities or reduction of hours that the premises were able to offer licensable activities.

We, therefore, looked at the possibility of adjourning the proceedings for a period of three months to allow for the operator to in effect be placed on probation to prove that the improved management controls could be maintained.

Counsel for the Police, senior solicitor for the authority and myself analysed the legal position. Section 52(2) states that before determining the application (for review), the authority must hold a hearing to consider it and any relevant representations. Sub-Section (4) highlights the sanctions available to the authority, namely:

(a) to modify the conditions of the licence;

(b) to exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence;

(c) to remove the Designated Premises Supervisor;

(d) to suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months;

(e) to revoke the licence.

There is nothing further in paragraph 52 which suggests there is no ability to adjourn the proceedings. This compares significantly to the issue with summary expedited reviews which were added to the Licensing Act 2003 by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 and became effective on 1 October 2007.

The wording here at section 53A(2)(b) states that on receipt of such an application the relevant Licensing Authority must:

(a) within 28 days after the day of its receipt, review that licence in accordance with section 53C and reach a determination on that review.

Clearly here the Government has determined that a decision needs to be concluded on the review within 28 days of its launch. This is perhaps due to the fact that these proceedings relate to premises which are associated with serious cases of crime and/or disorder.

We, therefore, turned to the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 and in particular Schedule 1 Regulation 5 dealing with the period of time in which various hearings must be commenced. Number 7 in the table deals with reviews of premises licences and clearly talks about the commencement of the review being "twenty working days beginning with the day after the end of the period during which the representations may be made as prescribed under section 51(3)(c)". We, therefore, concluded that there was an ability to adjourn the matter as there were no statutory requirements for the review to be concluded, merely commenced within twenty working days of the last date for representations.

The High Court has also looked at the issue of adjourning matters before licensing authorities, in the case of the R (on the application of) Murco Petroleum Limited and Bristol City Council.

In this case the application was for a premises licence for a Costcutter store at the Henleaze Service stations. The licensing authority sought further information from the applicant and adjourned the application for that information. The High Court made no criticism of the authority making an adjournment for further informationm their only comment being that this should have been to a defined date rather than being adjourned generally.

This being the case all sides agreed that sensible resolution of the review of the nightclub premises licence was to adjourn for three months to a defined date to ensure that the management continued to run the premises in such a way as to promote the licensing objectives. The Police asked for liberty to be able to bring the matter back in front of the authority earlier than that defined period if the operator slipped back in his management controls.

There is nothing wrong with looking for inventive solutions to try and deal with a variety of issues, as long as these do not infringe the primary legislation and the measures look to promote the licensing objectives.

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