Leeds SEV Operators Lose Judicial Review

Following from our article of the 19th December - 'Leeds Lap Dancing Clubs seek Judicial Review' the approved Judgement of the first hearings on the 6th & 7th March has now been released. The Applications for Judicial Review failed and the Court upheld the decision of Leeds City Council not to renew the licences for two Adult Entertainment Venues which formerly traded in the city. This decision is in line with recent decisions on the issue.

Applications for Judicial Review must first clear a hurdle placed by the Court which seeks to prevent cases deemed to have no merit from clogging the Courts; permission was granted to Bean Leisure Trading A Ltd (Operators of ‘Wildcats') and Ruby May (1) Limited (Operators of ‘Deep Blue') however the Honourable Mr Justice Stuart-Smith concluded that the challenges ultimately failed. The Court ruled that Leeds was entitled to reach the conclusions it did, which were in accordance with its published policy. "Its decisions were rational and proportionate".

A copy of the full judgement can be viewed here. The Judgement provides a detailed critique of the formation of Leed's SEV policy which had set a limit on the number of Sexual Entertainment Venue it would permit in Leeds to 4, formerly it had been 7. Following the adoption of the new policy, six clubs applied to renew. The Council heard all six applications consecutively, before deciding to grant three and refuse three. 2 of the venues refused were ‘Wildcats' & ‘Deep Blue' who sought a Judicial Review of the decision. Due to the ground cited in the initial decision to refuse an appeal to the Magistrate's Court was not permissible.

The Leeds decision reaffirms the wide discretion available to local Authorities in this area and their ability to limit numbers of venues. This was also described in an earlier judgement of 2014 in the case of R (ex parte Thompson) -v- Oxford City Council, in that case Lloyd Jones LJ said:

"The Schedule 3 regime gives a wide discretion to licensing authorities, in particular in forming value judgments as to whether the grant or renewal of a licence would be appropriate having regard to the character of the locality. ... Moreover, the fact that the maximum term of an SEV licence is twelve months indicates that local authorities are to keep these matters under frequent review."

The thrust of the judgement in the Leeds case is that their policy was constructed properly taking into account consultation results and was therefore valid, the renewal process and Committee decisions were in turn rational and proportionate. The reasons given by the Committee were also commended and aided the Court in reaching their decision to reject the applications. This separately re-affirms the need for Committee to give good reasons in all licensing matters.