The Bank was shut by the police several times in February 2011 for allegedly trading in breach of its licence conditions. To add insult to injury the designated premises supervisor (DPS) was threatened with arrest if he continued to stay open. The Bank’s owners saw this as a breach of their human right to trade. They took the police and the Home Office (on whose guidance the police had relied) to judicial review, and despite attempts by the police to settle out of court they pressed for a formal and public judgment.
So now we have it in writing from a High Court judge — police can’t close you down immediately simply by serving a closure notice, and neither should they arrest you solely for not complying with one. Good riddance to any enforcement officer threatening to shut the bar or to arrest the DPS on the back of a hastily-completed form.
We shall look back on the days of Home Office–sponsored “multi-agency licensing enforcement visits”, of which the misinterpretation of closure notices was a regular part, as one of the darker periods in licensing enforcement.
Appropriate use of closure notices
But let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Closure notices, when used properly, aren’t such a bad thing after all. If you think I am mad, just consider this scenario. A licensee has a condition on his licence stating that CCTV must be maintained to ‘evidential quality’. In fact, his CCTV is so old it can’t even maintain the time of day. On a routine licensing visit, the local police licensing officer points this out and the two of them agree that it will be sorted within a month.
The licensee puts it off and six weeks later there is a serious glassing in the pub. The offender isn’t traced because no CCTV footage is available. The police licensing officer gets a roasting from his superior. A week after the incident he arrives and the CCTV has still not been upgraded. He slaps the licensee with a closure notice, and the licensee is told to fix the CCTV within seven days. If it’s not done within that time the police will either apply to the magistrates’ court to close him down or prosecute him under Section 136 of the Licensing Act for unauthorised trading, if he continues to sell alcohol.
The licensee asks if he can trade while he is getting the CCTV fixed, to which the officer replies obliquely: “Just get it fixed.” The licensee takes his chances and continues to trade but three days later he upgrades the CCTV to the officer’s satisfaction. The closure notice is withdrawn.
This seems to me to be an appropriate use of a closure notice. If you don’t agree, think of the alternatives.
Check your licence conditions
If the licensee thought the CCTV condition too onerous he could have spoken with the police to discuss deleting or amending the wording to something more affordable or effective — but he didn’t.
At any time, and particularly after the glassing, the police could have prosecuted the licensee for trading in breach of the condition — the result being potentially a substantial fine and a criminal record (no more gliding through Customs at Orlando Airport, my boy). Or they could have applied for a review, with potential legal costs for the licensee and a notice in the pub’s window for 28 days saying the licence is being reviewed.
And does anyone really want the risk of the environmental health officer and local residents piling in with their complaints too, not least because the licensee’s fate would then be in the hands of an often unpredictable licensing sub-committee made up of local councillors?
No. Despite closure notices having been misused by some authorities in the past there are worse enforcement alternatives for the trade. So check your licence conditions and your licensed plans — if you are trading in breach of either and find yourself at the wrong end of a closure notice of the “I’m warning you” variety, well, this is one warning you should not ignore.