Strong-arm tactics hit trade

Over the past year there has been increasing concern about the advice given to police forces from the Home Office in relation to licensed premises.

As has been reported in this paper, there have been several examples of what might be called 'fishing expeditions' where the police in an area are primed with advice on their powers of arrest and closure that they then try out in a specific area — sometimes with disastrous results for licensees who are caught unawares.

Supervision visits to pubs and clubs is, of course, not new. The power of entry has been enshrined in successive Acts and all licensees are made aware of this power in

their own training. But it is the use — or abuse — of this power that is beginning to worry me.

The mantra is often trotted out that "if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear". But that does not mean that you have to demonstrate or prove your innocence at every turn, rather than be allowed to get on with your business until there is real evidence that something's wrong.

Home Office published advice seems to concentrate chiefly on these enforcement powers, which are presented as wide-ranging and unimpeachable.

As a manual for SAS-style raid tactics they must go down a storm. But they represent a very adversarial position and are a cause of concern to the vast majority of careful and law-abiding publicans out there who must be looking over their shoulders to see when they might be visited by the hit squad.

There is a fine line between correct enforcement and looking for trouble. The use of Section 19 'closure powers' for trivial breaches of licensing conditions is a case in point. An analysis of many of these demonstrates that the order to close is disproportionate to the actual error by the licensee and, when accompanied by the threat of arrest, is simply unacceptable.

In other areas of trading, such as catering, closure is seen as an absolute last resort, ordered by officers only when there is an imminent risk to health or safety. Where inspections find something wrong, the trader is given time to sort it out and only then is any legal action taken.

This is not a universal condemnation of police tactics.

But in answer to the Home Office contention that licensing authorities should take police evidence as 'gospel' and afford strong weight to it in reaching a decision, I have seen a number of cases recently where courts have found police evidence either selective, or have preferred the explanation of the licensee.

It is not for nothing that trade lawyers spend a great deal of time sifting through police evidence and finding inconsistencies that have damaged their clients.

Surely it is the wrong way round

to accuse someone, then trawl around for evidence to back up the accusation.

This tactic has, however, been all too common: demands for a complete set of CCTV pictures over the past seven days, not with any specific crime or event in mind but just to see if anything untoward has happened.

Drugs searches when there has been no suggestion that the premises have ever been used for dealing and any traces could quite easily have come from customers or their acquaintances. Demands to produce the actual original licence on the spot, rather than looking at the summary which is on display. 'Inspection' visits at the busiest time of the week (11pm on a Saturday is popular). These are all examples.

There are those who might call this intimidation. But the impetus seems to come from the top. It is not a great time for the licensed trade.