Recently, I have been examining the proposal in Swansea for the police to fine anyone who hands over their ID to a youngster to enable them to buy alcohol.
This idea apparently comes in the wake of the "seizure" of over 350 proof-of-age documents from underage youngsters that did not relate to them.
Readers will appreciate that I might support any initiative that targets the actual offenders in such cases. Attempting to buy alcohol underage is already a clear offence under the Licensing Act, but you will search in vain for more than a handful of prosecutions during 2009.
This is because the police policy is to avoid targeting the buyer and go for the seller instead. In this, they are backed to the hilt by the Home Office, which actively discourages actions against juveniles in these circumstances.
So Swansea police are bucking the trend. Or are they? It looks as if once again they are going for the adult — the over-age sibling who "lends" their ID to a younger sister or brother.
But to my mind this is probably a step too far. Although case law has held that it is not necessary for the police to prosecute the main offence (buying or attempting to buy) in order to bring a charge of "aiding and abetting", they still have to prove that the offence itself existed and this means bringing all the evidence before the court.
I am not sure that they can issue "on the spot" fines for whatever they like — the so-called penalty notices for disorder (PNDs) are only for a limited range of offences and I do not think lending ID is among them.
In any case, the adult can quickly claim that the document was stolen or taken without permission, so undermining the essential ingredient of guilty knowledge necessary for the offence.
It may be that this is a good piece of PR in the valleys — putting the frighteners on to family members to discourage them from joining in the conspiracy to get booze under age. Why worry about the legalities when the threat is good enough?
I would still like to see the police tackle this problem head on and haul a few more blatant underage buyers up before the magistrates, so that the culprits could be well publicised. It might also show what a difficult job the licensed trade has in determining the real age of purchasers.
Q&A
Who is an authorised person?
Q. We had an unpleasant incident over Christmas involving a local councillor who is known to be opposed to certain pubs. He came in one evening and demanded to see the premises licence and said he was an "authorised officer" of the authority and now had power to close us down. When I did my exam, I thought local councillors were not licensing officers. Has this changed?
A. Not yet, but this councillor may have "jumped the gun" on changes to the law which will allow councillors to be treated as "interested parties" in licensing matters in future.
However, this still does not give him the rights of entry and inspection that you describe in your letter, nor does it make him an "authorised person" under the terms of the Act. This is reserved for licensing officers who have been given specific authority and carry written authorisation of their appointment, which they can show on demand.
Clearly a police officer is also in a position to enter licensed premises and confirm that they are operating in accordance with their licence. For that purpose he is also given the right to demand sight of the actual licence, which needs to be kept on the premises under the control of a specifically appointed individual (usually the designated premises supervisor or duty manager).
As far as closing you down is concerned, this is not technically within his powers either. In future he will be able to apply to his own licensing authority for a review of the licence on specific grounds to do with the licensing objectives.
It is up to the authority to decide whether action should be taken against the pub. His complaint can also be rejected on the grounds that it is frivolous or vexatious.
Church social exempt?
Q. Over Christmas there was a very noisy party in the meeting room of a local community church and one of my customers who lives next door was told that as a church they are exempt from the licensing laws. Is this right?
A. Not exactly. This may be yet another example of misreading the Act. There is an exemption in terms of entertainment which takes place "at a place of public religious worship" or entertainment that is part of a religious meeting or service.
Clearly such a party is not a religious event, but the question may be whether the meeting room constitutes part of a place of public religious worship.
The way the exemption is worded seems to suggest that any entertainment in such premises is exempt and it does not have to be connected with an actual service. So the party itself may be exempt if the hall or meeting room is treated as such a place.
The supply of alcohol, however, is different. This is not exempted, so any sales of drink would require either a licence or a temporary event notice. However, if party-goers brought their own supplies, this might also fall outside the licensing laws.
It's on the cards
Q. Someone has told me that customers cannot in future use their own cards in a pub: they must be provided by the licensee. Is this true?
A. This is clearly the Christmas effect, with so many tales going around! This one is again half-based in truth: the Gambling Commission in its code of practice for gaming in pubs and clubs has suggested that equipment should be provided by the licensee where it is to be used for gambling purposes, and retained on the premises at the end of the evening.
But in the case of ordinary card games played by customers purely for their own enjoyment, there is no specific law that requires them to use "house" equipment. In any event, this is a recommendation, not a legal rule.