As licensing lawyers, we often hear licensee clients say that once their customers leave their pub or nightclub, they are not responsible for their patrons’ actions. If these customers then go on to cause disorder, shouldn’t it be down to the police to control them?
This argument (often used by licensees) that they are not responsible for what their customers get up to after they have left their premises has been put to rest by two recent cases, one involving a supermarket in Brighton and the other, a nightclub in Bristol.
Panache, one of the most popular (and dangerous) nightclubs in Bristol, lost its premises licence this month, following dismissal of its appeal against revocation of its licence. The Magistrates heard that the club was the scene of 150 violent incidents in just 287 club nights, which equates to a ratio of one incident every two nights.
Police superintendent Ian Wylie called for the club to lose its licence and be closed. He told councillors: “All Saints Street has the second highest level of violence of any street in the city of Bristol. Violence outside Panache has increased by 25 per cent in the last year and officers are spending a disproportionate amount of time there.”
During the hearing the club argued that the reports of the above incidents were greatly exaggerated. This led to police applying to be joined as parties to the appeal so that they could produce 4000 pages of records, showing a history of violence, both inside and outside the nightclub, underage drinking and drunkenness. Amongst the serious incidents reported were one of GBH; four allegations of sexual assault, which were not adequately reported to police; class A drugs seized on 16 occasions in three months; door staff violently dealing with customers, including using inappropriate head and neck restraints; police being deliberately obstructed by senior club staff when attempting to interview victims of assaults; All Saints Street in Bristol city centre having to be regularly closed by police on club nights for public safety; underage customers had repeatedly being found inside, despite supposedly stringent door checks and Police repeatedly trying to help improve the club’s management, without success.
Philip Kolvin, the QC who represented Bristol City Council reported that “the club submitted that this level of incidents was normal for a city centre nightclub, that the club had managed the incidents well and that it was not responsible for what happened away from the premises.”
The court roundly rejected this argument. The magistrates stated that it was their job to take action in the interests of the wider community, rather than those of the individual licence holder. The club’s management was found to have failed to recognize the problems and therefore deal with them.
The problems at this nightclub are a rather extreme example of licensing breaches, and it is difficult to see how the club thought it could keep its licence. The comprehensive evidence from the police certainly did nothing to dispel the impression that drunk and disorderly patrons of the club contributed significantly to problems of crime and disorder on the streets of Bristol city centre, once they had left the premises.
The second case involves the supermarket giant, Sainsbury’s, who launched an unsuccessful appeal against refusal of a premises licence for off-sales at its new store on North Street, Brighton, in July.
The magistrates in this case, took the same wider approach in order to determine whether a licence should be granted. The court took in to consideration the issue of street drinking and what happens with the alcohol once it leaves the premises, regardless of the fact that this is something that Sainbury’s and other off-licences cannot control.
During the appeal, although Sainsbury’s offered additional stringent conditions on its premises licence, the court upheld the council’s decision, as the supermarket giant was unable to show that the grant of the licence would not have an adverse impact on the level of crime and disorder in the surrounding area.
It is worth noting that the area in which the Sainsbury’s store is located, on North Street, comes under Brighton’s and Hove’s cumulative impact zone. This allows the licensing committee to consider the impact of other licensed premises in an area that they consider to have already reached saturation point, due to the sheer number of licensed premises and the high degree of drinking related problems. Problems usually identified in such areas include:
- street drinking;
- proxy purchasing (buying alcohol on behalf of under-18s);
- pre-loading by young people consuming often large amounts of alcohol before going for a night out (and being more likely to be involved in alcohol-related violence);
- dispersal issues;
- binge-drinking;
- public (and sometimes violent) disorder.
It is now becoming incredibly difficult for a licensee to argue that the grant of a new premises licence or the addition of longer hours will not have a negative effect in a cumulative impact area.
When Sainsbury’s licence application was first opposed by Sussex Police, Chief Inspector Simon Nelson commented that “the granting of a new premises licence to these premises would provide a further venue supplying alcohol, within an area so sufficiently heavily populated with licensed premises that, disorder and public nuisance have reached unacceptable levels.”
Another interesting point about this case is the role played by the public health authority. The City Council’s “top doctor,” Dr Tom Scanlon, Brighton & Hove’s Director of Public Health, gave evidence, presumably on the long term and adverse health effects of 
excessive drinking. The influence of health and the effect of the nation’s drinking habits on the public purse and the NHS are likely to come more to the forefront in licensing applications. Primary care trusts and local health boards are to become Responsible Authorities, giving them a right to object to any new premises licence or variation application.
What these two cases do make clear is that a licensee will be held to be responsible for what happens away from the premises. In the past, Licensees could not be held responsible for the behaviour of patrons once they had left their premises. It seems that this is fast becoming a thing of the past.