May 2007

Legal News

Violent crime reduction act

operational, Legal News, May 2007, COMMENTS

I know I’ve mentioned it before but you DO need to be ready for the Violent Crime Reduction Act.

In early May for a period of 10 weeks police forces are targeting licensed premises to endeavour to catch those serving alcohol to under age drinkers. 16 year old girls or boys will be taken into at least 20 premises within each police area. At least three attempts will be made within each premises. This means that you could survive the first two, be caught on the third and face a further two visits. Under 18’s will attempt to buy alcohol. If they are successful then the member of bar staff who served them will receive an £80 fixed penalty notice. Clearly they can choose whether to pay this or dispute it and go to Court. What seems clear is that if they pay it then they have no criminal record. If they are summonsed, taken to Court and convicted then there would be a criminal record.

On the present basis it seems that most people will accept the £80 fixed penalty. If your venue attracts three fixed penalties within a period of three months then the premises licence holder may face the prospect of having to close the premises. The police could decide at any time within a period of three months to ask that the premises be closed for a maximum period of 48 hours. If the police take this course then they can chose a profitable period. It is unlikely that this will cover anything other than weekend nights and may well fall before a bank holiday. The loss of revenue could be considerable.

What’s the alternative? You could choose to refuse to accept the two day closure and go before the Magistrates’. It’s worth just pausing for a moment and noting that the police may take this course in any event. They haven’t got to offer you the two day closure. What can you do in the Magistrates’? You can’t deny it, because once the police have proved that there have been three such sales, there is simply no defence. All the training of staff and other due diligence methods you have used simply become mitigating circumstances. What you would need is an extremely good lawyer who understands how best to mitigate upon your behalf.

You may also face a problem in connection with the fixed penalty notices. Were you, as the premises licence holder, advised that the fixed penalty notices had been received by members of staff? If you weren’t then there is clearly some failure in your reporting system. This may in fact help but only if you can show the Magistrates’ that you have since significantly improved the operation. If you were aware of the sales then what did you do? In those circumstances you would have to show that you gave fresh training requiring all members of staff to acknowledge the problem which occurred with the previous under age drinker.

With good mitigation you may successfully avoid the premises being closed. The trouble is we simply don’t know what’s gong to happen. This is the first time that premises licence holders have been targeted in this way. Every previous attempt has failed. I hope to be able to report on the outcome of this campaign once the first three months are over.

There is a rumour that the Government is looking at the issue of drunkenness in licensed premises. The main problem seems not to be to define what drunkenness is. If it was taken as being the level of alcohol which makes you incapable of driving a vehicle then that would have grave implications for the on trade. Most of us now nominate a driver who drinks very little whilst the remainder happily drink away. If the police were able to say that the car passengers were then drunk it seems to me that this would kill the on trade. It’s very difficult for the licensee in two respects. Firstly, somebody may have had too much to drink but not be showing any symptoms of it whilst they are in licensed premises.

Once they leave they may well behave differently and for the first time may themselves be aware that they’d have too much to drink. This could lead to them behaving in an anti-social way and, for example, urinating in a public place. If the licensee can then be prosecuted it seems to me that this is very dangerous. This is particularly true when people are increasingly drinking cheaply bought supermarket booze at home before coming into city centres to enjoy themselves. They then drink that little bit more alcohol that sends them over the edge. Who is really to blame for the drunkenness in those circumstances? My main concern however revolves around how the police will prove it. If a couple of police officers say that they observed an individual in your licensed premises who had too much to drink then how will you possibly disprove that? If somebody has had too much to drink the Magistrates’ will be faced with two police officers on the one hand saying he had and you on the other hand saying he hadn’t.

Who will they believe?

Words: Jeremy Allen

From: May 2007 Issue

Subscribe to NIGHT magazine