It follows a landmark High Court judgment on 13 March when the Bank, in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, received substantial undisclosed damages for loss of profit from the Home Office and West Yorkshire Police. The venue was shut five times, and the designated premises supervisor threatened with arrest, under Section 19 of the Criminal Justice & Police Act 2001.
The pub was accused of not having a female door supervisor, even though the premises licence specified only that the operator should use its “best endeavour to employ a female door supervisor”.
The PMA exclusively revealed last April that licensees were being threatened with the unlawful closures and PMA legal editor Peter Coulson called them an “abuse”. Notices under Section 19 can be served if a pub breaches licensing conditions, but this does not mean an immediate closure of the premises. Officers must obtain permission from a magistrate to issue a closure order.
This case could open the floodgates for other pubs, which were forced to close their premises under Section 19, to make a claim against the Home Office and police.
West Yorkshire Police conceded the guidance was unlawful last June, that its actions had been illegal and that it was liable to pay damages. The Home Office withdrew the guidance from its website in July 2011 and wrote to all chief constables pointing out legal errors in the guidance.
However, the Bank continued to press the claim, in pursuit of a more public acknowledgment of the true effect of the Criminal Justice & Police Act 2001.
The Home Office and West Yorkshire police agreed to a consent order that said: “The service of a closure notice pursuant to section 19 of the Criminal Justice & Police Act 2001 does not require the premises to close or cease selling alcohol immediately; or entitle the police to require it to do so; or entitle the police to arrest a person on the sole ground of non-compliance with the notice.”
Michael Kheng, director of Kurnia Licensing Consultants, which represented the Bank, said: “This was a clear case of over-enforcement causing damage to the goodwill of a business, not to mention the intimidation felt by the licensee confronted by police officers requiring him to close there and then.
“My client and I felt it right to pursue this to a judgment, so the legal position is clearly established, to protect licensees from similar conduct.”
Coulson has been fighting against Section 19 being used in this way after he first heard about police closing half a dozen pubs in Merseyside in 2009. He said: “This is a great victory for the trade, we needed it — we’ve been getting clobbered left, right and centre. It was very unfair, and I give credit to Michael Kheng who stuck with it, and fought hard. It may mean others that have been closed under Section 19 could make a claim.”