The reaction by Doncaster licensees to the closure order obtained by the police on
the recent visit of Leeds United football
team, for a match that was never played, is understandable.
However, in fairness to the police, they were not too know that the freezing pitch would result in the game being called off, by which time on the Saturday morning some hundreds of Leeds fans could well have made the journey to Doncaster already. There was, it has to be said, just as much possibility of trouble when they learned the match had been cancelled than if it had gone ahead.
The problem is that a senior officer somewhere has to make a judgement before there is actually any trouble. He has to anticipate it, and thereafter make an application, or a request, based not so much on evidence but on his knowledge and any intelligence which has come his way.
There are now two separate legal routes for closing down pubs, as well as the tried and tested method of simply requesting licensees to shut for a period while the away fans are in town. One is of fairly ancient origin; the other arrived on the statute book in 2001 and has been sparingly used, mainly for dealing with an existing situation.
But it was the "old" power which was used during the 2001/2002 football season in Nottingham, when the police applied to the local magistrates because they were fearful of a "riot or tumult" in the town. That meant the bench ordering the closure of at least 30 pubs in the potential riot area for the whole of the afternoon - even when the anticipated confrontations had not materialised because the away fans had already left.
I wrote at the time that it was perhaps important to have a flexible approach to this question of closure, and the new police powers contained in the Criminal Justice & Police Act 2001 (which do not require the prior approval of the bench) were better because they could be suspended after a shorter period - perhaps even half an hour - when the trouble had
subsided.
The problem is that it is very difficult to protest effectively at the time, because the senior police officer only has to show that he "reasonably believes" that there is likely to be disorder on or in the vicinity of the premises and related to those premises. It is not the premises that have to cause the trouble, mind you. The word "related" appears to have been interpreted in some areas to mean "the fact that it is a pub, and troublemakers will go there".
Because of the wording, a licensee would in most cases just put up and shut up, because it is not worth the hassle of arguing. He would hope, if the new powers were being used rather than the old ones, that the police would signal the all-clear before the day had become a complete financial disaster.
It is because of the possibility of argument over the rightness of the decision, incidentally, that the Government inserted an indemnity clause into the Act, protecting the police from any legal action in respect of financial loss arising from an over-enthusiastic closure policy.
However, they must have taken on board some of the Nottingham protests, because I note that in the new Licensing Act a new adverb has been inserted in the relevant section - "imminently". So a general preventative closure is now not in prospect; rather, it is that the police have to have a reason why the pub should be closed forthwith - probably because the fans are on their way or in the area already.