Police cutbacks spell trouble

This is, of course, a matter for debate but what is clear is that police resources will be stretched and that is not necessarily good news for the licensed trade.

There are several strands to this problem. The cuts may result in a longer time to respond to an incident when summoned, or in some cases an inability to respond at all. Although there is a right for a licensee to call on police aid, if there is no-one available it may be a fruitless exercise.

The other side of the coin is, of course, whether the police will increasingly rely on other forms of ‘policing’ to assist them in their work. Among these is the highly contentious matter of CCTV, highlighted last week — and this — in the case of Michael Kheng. But this is really only the tip of the iceberg.

As I’ve said before, the requirement for CCTV has become more widespread as a licence condition, but this now includes a raft of minimum standards that the licensee must meet in relation to the equipment and the availability of tapes or recordings.

There are no fixed criteria for the type of premises where CCTV is to be considered appropriate by the licensing authority, although the matter is covered in several places in the statutory guidance.

However, it is clear from the Information Commissioner’s statements that CCTV is not appropriate in all circumstances and attempts to turn it into a ‘standard condition’ on licences should be resisted.

No-one disputes that in city-centre pubs and late-night establishments, for example, it is right that surveillance to cover the behaviour of customers is put in place and properly maintained.

This is in everyone’s interests. The line comes when a CCTV condition is made obligatory for all new licences as part of a standard representation by police, without any evidence that it is necessary to meet licensing objectives.
The police argument appears to be that pubs are often used for criminal activity of various kinds and they require good, clear images to pursue offenders.

But other parts of towns and cities are also used for illegal activities and the occupiers of those premises are not under a similar obligation. It is right that conditions on licences should go to meet the licensing objectives, among which is the prevention of crime and disorder.

But as a recent case held, this does not mean crime generally, but that specifically connected with — and related to — the operation of the premises.

To seek a requirement that licensees should exercise a general role as ‘special constables’ and deliver up all material for examination as part of a trawling exercise does seem to be a step too far.
However, I anticipate the police may seek even more conditions aimed at assisting them when they have the opportunity to ask for ‘appropriate’ conditions to be inserted on a premises licence, probably later this year.

In those circumstances they will not have to prove to the committee that the conditions are necessary for some perceived problem — merely that they could be inserted in a licence as a precautionary measure.

This flies in the face of yet another leading case on making assumptions, which roundly condemned the idea of lack of evidence. However, that seems to be the way we are going.