As is sometimes shown at the end of films, this particular story is based on fact, but some of the characters and details have been changed ‘to protect identities’.
Let us call the bar ‘Bar Humbug’, with apologies to all those who really have the name. Bar Humbug is a small bar with a capacity of around 120, in a large northern city; it offers food during the day and has a lounge/café feel with lots of tables and chairs, serving coffees, beers etc.
It is popular during the day, but particularly in the early evening with office workers who enjoy happy-hour cocktails until around 8pm. On Fridays and Saturdays the terminal hour for the sale of alcohol is 3am and so it is a bit of a hybrid. It is in a cumulative impact area. It has only occasionally come to the attention of the authorities for minor incidents.
Approximately two months ago the premises decided to have a ‘promoted event’ in which an external promoter was arranged with a DJ. The event was successful and there were no issues until 2.30am when a fight broke out, which quickly escalated and involved large scale disorder; the fight spread on to the street and one individual was seriously injured. The incident inside and out was caught on CCTV cameras.
The premises had arranged for doorstaff and a number of other measures, but could do nothing to prevent the incident developing into widespread disorder; the police were called and the premises closed.
Bar Humbug co-operated as much as possible with the police, handing over CCTV footage, providing witness statements and copies of any due diligence materials on request.
The police decided to issue a summary review of the premises and requested that the licence be suspended. They were not prepared to negotiate at this stage. The bar understood the gravity of the incident and suggested to the licensing committee that, as its record was otherwise good, a condition preventing any further promoted nights would be sufficient. The police were insistent that suspension was needed “to reflect” the seriousness of the position and for the bar to put “its house in order”, but no practical reason was put forward.
Severely restricted
The committee suspended the licence immediately. At the full review the police requested the imposition of 45 conditions and the reduction of the terminal hour for sale of alcohol to 11.30pm Monday to Thursday, and midnight on Friday and Saturday, effectively turning the premises into a daytime bar with conditions consistent with a late-night operation, the worst of both worlds.
The premises, which is independently owned, put forward its own proposals and agreed most of the police conditions, but wished to sell alcohol until 2am on Friday and Saturday. The owners argued that they had made a serious mistake in having a promoted night, but had taken certain precautions despite which the evening had gone wrong. It was, however, a “one off”.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, as it was the same panel who saw the rather graphic CCTV footage at the summary review, the councillors followed the police and the premises had its licence severely restricted, including the use of its outside area, which has put the business at a serious trading disadvantage.
The bar feels like it has a noose tight around its neck, and that the police have been politically motivated from the start to seek a reduction in hours in the cumulative impact area so that there is one less late-night premises.
The serious incident at the bar had given them the opportunity to use the Draconian legislation at their disposal and compliant licensing councillors did the rest. There has been no ‘partnership approach’.
This can be the reality of enforcement today, not in all areas, but in some. The police have extensive powers and if they do issue a summary review and obtain a suspension it can be very difficult for the operator to come back from this.
In the absence of a truly independent tribunal to assess the quality of the evidence and the reasonableness of the police approach, the operator must be prepared to challenge through the courts — which is too expensive and risky for some independent operators. The result of this process is a licence with reduced hours and a bar that will struggle to be commercially viable, having paid a heavy price for a single lapse.