Propel legal Briefing: The evolving challenge of evidence in licensing hearings by Michelle Hazlewood

First appearing for Propel Hospitality in their Legal Briefing on 13th May 2026

Over the years, I have appeared at countless licensing hearings, both before modern Licensing Sub Committees and, under the previous regime, before Magistrates who were responsible for determining applications under the licensing legislation. Before 2005, when hearings were still conducted in the Magistrates’ Court, advocates presented their cases to legally trained panels who understood the rules of evidence and were well equipped to distinguish between direct evidence, hearsay and matters supported by proper corroboration.

From courts to committees

Today, licensing applications are determined by Licensing Sub Committees made up of local councillors who, depending on where you are in the country, can have very different levels of experience and training. A licensing committee will typically consist of around 10 to 15 councillors, with hearings then determined by smaller Sub Committees of three members, usually chaired by a more experienced councillor. In ordinary circumstances, local elections may only result in the loss of one or two committee members at a time, allowing a degree of continuity and institutional knowledge to remain in place.

However, the significant political shifts seen in some parts of the country following recent local elections have the potential to reshape committees almost overnight. In certain authorities, long-standing committee members have been replaced wholesale, requiring councils to recruit and train an entirely new cohort of councillors in what is a surprisingly complex area of law. For the trade, the concern is not simply one of delay whilst new committees are formed. There is also the risk of inconsistency in decision making, poorer quality hearings whilst members gain experience and, in some cases, a more politicised approach to applications before councillors become fully familiar with the legal framework they are expected to apply.

A Licensing Sub Committee is often described as a quasi-judicial body. Whilst committees are expected to consider applications fairly and properly, the process itself is far less formal than the court system which existed before 2005. Strict rules of evidence do not apply in the same way. Committees can accept hearsay evidence and then decide for themselves what weight should be attached to it. Equally, it is for the committee to decide whether cross-examination of those giving evidence is necessary or appropriate in relation to the application before them.

On a positive note, this undoubtedly creates a more relaxed and accessible system of adjudication compared to the old Magistrates’ Court process. However, in my experience, it can also leave applicants feeling that the process is weighted against the business operator from the outset. Particularly in contentious applications, businesses can come away with the sense that objections carry greater weight than the evidence put forward in support of the application itself. One frustration raised with the Licensing Task Force is the fact that anyone can submit a representation against an application, whether they are located next door to the premises or much further away, and that representation alone is enough to trigger a hearing. The individual making the objection can also notify the Licensing Authority that they do not intend to attend the hearing, yet the hearing will still proceed and their comments will still be taken into account.

That means applicants are often left in the difficult position of responding to concerns raised by someone who is not present, does not give direct evidence and cannot be cross-examined in the same way and for evidence to be tested. More importantly, it removes any real opportunity for the operator to engage with the objector directly, clarify what is actually being sought by the application, or address what can often simply be a misunderstanding of the proposals.

Misunderstandings and exaggeration

Unfortunately, this is far from uncommon. The average neighbour is unlikely to have a detailed understanding of licensing forms or processes, which can easily lead to assumptions being made about what an application actually means in practice. We see this regularly with applications for late night refreshment, where residents often assume a premises intends to operate as a late-night takeaway, when in reality the application is simply intended to ensure the lawful sale of hot food or drink after 11pm.

During consultations, we often see representations made in particularly forceful terms, sometimes for impact, sometimes exaggerated, and occasionally from individuals who have become understandably sensitised to an existing situation in their area. From time to time, questions are also raised as to the legitimacy of a representation altogether.

False representations

A step further into these murky scenarios is the use of AI to generate petitions and representations submitted by complainants who simply do not exist, with the ability to do so quickly and at scale. This is a deeply concerning development for a system which relies so heavily upon public participation and trust in the integrity of the consultation process. Whilst questionable representations and embellished objections are nothing new in licensing, the ability to mass produce convincing submissions using AI takes the issue into entirely different territory.

In my opinion, the Heaven Nightclub team and in particular their legal representative Philip Kolvin, should be applauded by the industry for bringing forward evidence which exposed an example of the use of AI in falsified representations and ultimately led to the individual involved being held to account.

The application before Westminster City Council relating to Heaven nightclub attracted considerable public interest following a charge of rape against a bouncer, which was later stood down following a trial. In opposition to the application, the council received a large number of representations alongside a separate petition said to contain more than 2,000 signatures. As part of his investigation, Kolvin notes that the list included repeated common first names in large clusters, including multiple Ryans, Zoes, Theos and Olivias, which in his view added to concerns about whether the material reflected genuine residents.

A number of representations were also received via encrypted emails and, according to Philip Kolvin’s investigation, those representations were very similar in wording and structure. The legal team for Heaven became concerned that they may have been generated using an AI tool and raised this with Westminster City Council. However, Kolvin notes that the council was not prepared to investigate whether the representations were genuine at that stage. A basic check against the electoral register was not undertaken.

Following concerns raised by the operator and its legal team, the matter was pursued further and criminal proceedings were brought. On 16 April 2025 an individual pleaded guilty to an offence under section 158 of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to making a false statement in licensing proceedings - specifically relating to the falsification of two emails which were found to be false following an investigation from the Metropolitan Police.

Protecting the integrity of the system

Thus, the old adage that you cannot believe everything you read feels particularly relevant here. What is especially concerning is that, in some cases, the hospitality industry can face opposition which is not always subject to the level of scrutiny one might expect. In practice, Licensing Sub Committees can be inclined to take residents’ views and concerns at face value. While that approach is understandable in terms of ensuring public voices are heard, it can sometimes lead to distress for operators and create real economic consequences for those seeking to develop and invest in their businesses.

As the sector continues to evolve, particularly with new challenges such as AI-generated content and increasingly sophisticated forms of objection, there is a growing need to ensure that the integrity of the process is protected without undermining genuine public participation. Striking that balance is not straightforward, but it is essential if confidence in the licensing system is to be maintained by both operators and communities.

By Michelle Hazlewood