Putting drunks on the 'black list'

It was interesting to hear of the first national ban on a woman drinker under the new Drinking Banning Orders legislation. However, such bans are not really new in the licensed trade. Habitual drunkards can still be put on what is commonly called the "black list", which dates back well over 100 years.

The procedure for putting someone on the "black list" is laid out in surviving sections of the Licensing Act 1902, which are still on the statute book. It imposes a duty on licensees of all kinds, together with members' clubs, not to serve anyone who has been officially banned, on penalty of a fine. Unlike the Ban the Thugs Act, the police are involved from the start.

Where a person has been convicted of an offence of drunkenness and that person has, during the preceding 12 months, been convicted at least three times of similar offences, the court may make an order under this Act that notice of the conviction should be sent to the local police authority.

This has the effect of banning the offender from buying, or attempting to buy, any intoxicating liquor in any on or off-licensed premises or club.

The court will notify the person concerned that this order has been made and will also acquaint him or her with the effects of the order. The ban lasts for three years from the date of conviction. The maximum fine for contravention is now £200 for the listed person and £500 for anyone who serves them in contravention of the order.

For this reason, the police must circulate to all licensed premises, off-licences, supermarkets, restaurants, hotels and clubs a description of the banned person (with an illustration if possible) and all licensees should bring the notice to the attention of all staff, preferably by keeping it permanently displayed in a place where it can be read by them, but not by customers.

It would appear that the ban is only enforceable locally, if at all. The police authority that receives notification of the conviction will only cover a specified area, which may be adequate if the convicted person is a local and is well known in the vicinity.

It is admitted that the enforcement of such a ban in any larger city or conurbation would be very difficult and nationally completely impossible. This has not stopped one or two courts from seeking to impose a national ban in the past.

Q&A​

PRS fees liability​

Q.​ Is it right that the Performing Right Society (PRS) can slap a bill on a licensee if his cleaner starts humming a copyrighted song? That sounds completely unfair to me. Will they never stop harassing us?

A.​ This may not be the complete story. I think it is more likely that the cleaner was singing along to a tune on the radio, which was some form of evidence that the radio was being played for the entertainment of pub staff. This would technically be a public performance and the PRS would indeed be within its rights to seek payment for it.

Although broadcasts on domestic occasions are not subject to copyright fees and the use of a radio for his own enjoyment by a licensee is probably exempt, any "performance" of music to an audience, even a restricted one, is deemed to be covered by the copyright laws.

There are, of course, tariffs for various sectors and the pub trade has its own for public performance to customers. But the playing of music to employees, wherever they work, has been held to be liable for PRS charges.

Merely humming a song to yourself, of course, is not a performance and it would indeed be remarkable if this was the basis for the report.

Action after death​

Q.​ The licensee of this pub is very seriously ill and his wife is not on the licence. I think he is the designated premises supervisor (DPS) as well. The family want to keep the pub going. What should they do?

A.​ The stark truth is that the premises licence will lapse if the holder dies. That is clearly stated in the Licensing Act 2003. However, the personal representative of the deceased person, who may well be the licensee's wife, is entitled to give what is called an "interim authority notice" within seven days to the council. This will immediately cause the licence to be reinstated so that the business can carry on trading, as long as there is someone to act as DPS.

It might, in fact, be a good idea to change the DPS if the licensee is seriously ill and holds that role at present. His consent will, however, be required.

Giving the notice is not enough. Within seven days she must give a copy of the notice to the police. If that is done, then she has two months to sort out the pub's affairs, because the interim authority will last for that period. The periods of seven days and two months are to be increased to 28 days and three months under a pending Regulatory Reform Order.

However, it is likely that she will be advised to use the provisions of section 50 of the new Act to reinstate the licence in her own name. She does not need a personal licence to do this. Barring police objections, which should be unlikely, the licence will be immediately revived and a transfer will take effect and there will be no more formalities.

Over-size measures​

Q.​ Is it true that all Optics you use in the same bar must be the same size?

A.​ Not necessarily. As the law now stands, there is a clear distinction between the four named spirits — gin, rum, vodka and whisky — and any other spirit or wine-based alcoholic drink.

Under weights and measures regulations, there is a choice of 25ml or 35ml measures for these four. The choice between them is up to you, but it is quite true that it must be the same measure all over the pub. You cannot mix them.

It means that for anything on the back bar other than those four named spirits, you can use whatever measure you like. But it would be sensible in most cases to standardise your measures for spirits, in line with your choice for the most popular ones, for very sound stocktaking and control reasons.