In spite of the "breathing space" many licensees thought they had with the referral of the Karen Murphy case to the European Court, prosecutions against the illegal showing of Sky football are continuing. One of the latest involved yet another Portsmouth licensee who is not only facing a heavy fine and costs, but having her licence revoked by the magistrates.
This second fact cannot go without comment. It might appear, at first sight, that the pub loses its licence. That is not the case: the licence referred to must be the personal licence of the offender being prosecuted.
The reason for this is that the magistrates have no power, except on appeal from the licensing authority, to deal with the premises licence in such circumstances. The behaviour of the licensee is what is under scrutiny, so the sections of the Licensing Act come into play in respect of what are called "relevant offences" for which a personal licence holder may be prosecuted.
It is the duty of anyone appearing before a magistrates' court on a charge for a relevant offence to reveal the fact that they hold a personal licence. As I recently wrote in answer to a reader, this is not always apparent if they are not in the trade at the time. In this case, it was clear that the accused person ran the pub and was likely to hold a personal licence as a result.
It is then necessary to look at the list of relevant offences in schedule 4 of the Licensing Act. This list is often published by licensing authorities to assist applicants for a personal licence in making a declaration on their criminal record. It is also the one to which the magistrates must have regard in dealing with a prosecution.
The list is not comprehensive, but it clearly includes certain offences under the Copyright, Designs &Patents Act 1988, covering the fraudulent reception of television transmissions, infringement of copyright and public performance of copyright material. Where a pub owner shows Sky programmes without the necessary commercial agreement in place, they risk prosecution by one of the enforcement agencies or even the local authority.
If they find a person guilty, the magistrates then have to decide whether or not to suspend or revoke the personal licence. They have a discretion on this — not just whether to suspend or revoke, but whether to take such action at all. In some cases they do not deal with the licence, considering that the punishment for the offence is sufficient.
But in more serious cases of infringement, they may feel that revocation of the personal licence is an appropriate step to take. This is particularly the case if they are asked to take into account any previous convictions for a relevant offence. I do not know the history of this defendant, but it may be that the magistrates felt they needed to set an example in this case.
That is not the end of the story. As I said, the pub does not close if there is another personal licence holder available to run the business, perhaps also taking over as designated premises supervisor. Or the licensee in question can appeal the magistrates' decision, in which case the forfeiture of the licence may be suspended until such time as the appeal is determined. The legislators recognised that this forfeiture was a serious step to take, because they made provision in the Act for suspension of forfeiture right to the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court), although it is most unlikely that anyone would take it that far in the normal course of events.