Fair trial rights in Licensing Proceedings

1 February 2011 by

R on the application of Hope and Glory Public House v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31  Read judgement

It was not unfair in terms of Article 6 to require of a party aggrieved by a licensing decision to bear the responsibility of persuading the court hearing the appeal that the original decision was wrong.

This appeal raises a question about how a magistrates’ court hearing an appeal from a decision of a licensing authority under the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”) should approach the decision.

The appellant landlord owned premises licensed for the sale of alcohol and entertainment. In 2008 complaints were made by residents about the level of noise caused by the pub’s customers. At the subsequent hearing for the review of the licence the Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee took the view that the noise did constitute a “serious” public nuisance and imposed conditions on the way the appellant served customers. This view was upheld on appeal both by the magistrate’s court and then by the district judge.

The appellant sought judicial review of this decision on the basis that the district judge’s ruling about how he should approach the decision of the sub-committee was wrong in law. It was submitted that the district judge wrongly placed the burden on the appellant to disprove that the noise caused by customers of the pub was such as to amount to a public nuisance and that the conditions imposed by the licensing authority were necessary and proportionate.

The respondents conceded that this decision of the licensing authority was an administrative decision, which involved a determination of the appellant’s “civil rights” within the meaning of Article 6 – Kingsley v United Kingdom (2002).  But they maintained that there is nothing in domestic or Strasbourg case law to suggest that there is a general principle that it is incompatible with Article 6 for a person aggrieved by an administrative decision to bear the responsibility of establishing his complaint.
As for the compatibility with Article 6 of the limited scope of review in licensing cases, the respondents maintained, and the Court accepted, that some administrative decisions call for particular knowledge on the part of the decision maker, and that it would be “perverse” if Article 6 in such cases required a full fact-finding to a tribunal which lack the degree of expertise of the original decision maker (R (Alconbury Developments Limited) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Trade and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Taking in to account that the district judge had heard a mass of evidence over four days, as a result of which he reached essentially the same factual conclusions as the licensing authority had reached after five hours, the Court concluded that the form of appeal provided by the Act amply satisfied the requirements of Article 6.

Although there is nothing particularly momentous about this appeal and its outcome it does tease out, quite elegantly, some of the arguments that have become entangled in the divide between judicial and administrative decision making. It is easy to forget, when focussing on the explicit and implied requirements of Article 6, why the original decision has been given to a non-judicial body, and therefore why, as a consequence, that power would be negated by allowing a full judicial appeal. Licensing is a very neat example of this; as Toulson LJ, says, although questions about noise, law and order, economic benefit to the proprietor and the effect on the locality are all in a sense questions of fact,

they are not questions of the “heads or tails” variety. They involve an evaluation of what is to be regarded as reasonably acceptable in the particular location. In any case, deciding what (if any) conditions should be attached to a licence as necessary and proportionate to the promotion of the statutory licensing objectives is essentially a matter of judgment rather than a matter of pure fact.

– and the judgment itself is an expression of the power that has been delegated by the people to an elected body as a whole, to decide what the public interest requires.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. ObiterJ says:

    The licensing reform is actually quite an odd piece of legislation. Parliament took licensing away from the magistrates (after some 600 years !) and handed it to elected councillors. They perform an administrative role. However, the Act gave the magistrates an appeal jurisidciction and, on hearing an appeal, the magistrates may make any decision which the local authority could have made. However, they act judicially. It all seemed to be something of an unnecessary reform driven by local authorities lobbying government for work in more areas.

    Many licensees preferred the old system which was entirely judicial, seen to be free from any bias and, above all, considerably cheaper.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: