Summary Review - Premises 'Associated'

09 Jan
2015

The High Court have today issued an interesting Judgment concerning the mechanics of Summary Reviews. Again, the issue of interim steps and their longevity has escaped close scrutiny. On this occasion the issue of the requisite Police certificate has been examined.

The application for Judicial Review arose from Summary Review proceeding instigated by the Metropolitan Police following an incident at the premises on the 27th July 2014.

The facts are detailed in the Judgment a copy of which can be found here. In summary, a man was seriously injured at the pub. The husband of the licence holder, Mr. Surjut Lalli, who was managing the premises at the time was subsequently charged with ABH, a second man was charged with GBH.

The Applicant's lawyers argued on behalf of the premises licence holder:

"...that the mere occurrence of serious crime or serious disorder at the licensed premises is insufficient to justify a senior member of the police force giving the certificate that must support any application for a summary review. For the premises to have become "associated with serious crime or serious disorder", there must be a pattern of such behaviour there that would lead a reasonable person to associate the premises with serious crime or serious
disorder or both."

Following representation against the application by Philip Kolvin QC and Gerald Gouriet QC on behalf of the Council, Deputy High Court Judge John Howell QC dismissed the application stating:

"Parliament intended that the licensing authority should be entitled to treat an application for a summary review made by the chief officer of police as valid if it is accompanied by a certificate that apparently meets the requirements of section 53A(1) and has not been quashed. The licensing authority is not obliged to consider whether or not it is liable to be quashed.

On a claim for judicial review of such a certificate, no particularly stringent standard of review is called for, given that the certificate of itself has no immediate and direct effect on others and that all the circumstances, including any association that the licensed premises may have with serious crime and disorder, can be examined fairly on the merits when the application for summary review is under consideration.

In any event, however, in this case Superintendent Nash was plainly entitled in the circumstances as they appeared to be to him to give the certificate that he did, stating that the licensed premises were associated with serious crime" - Deputy High Court Judge John Howell QC

The key points to be taken from the Judgment appear to us to be as follows:

  1. A Licensing Committee is obliged to proceed with a Summary Review if an Application and duly signed Certificate are received.
  2. The licensing authority is not obliged to consider whether or not the certificate is liable to be quashed.
  3. In order to attempt to quash a Certificate Judicial Review Proceedings are required.
  4. The mere fact serious crime or serious disorder occurs in, or close to, the licensed premises does not necessarily mean in this context that such disorder or crime has any relevant connection or link with those premises.

In respect of the final point the Judge gave an example of where disorder at a premises may not be ‘associated' (although in this case the premises was clearly ‘associated' in his mind):

"For example, disorder that has begun elsewhere and has nothing to do with premises, their management or customers might be continued in the road outside the licensed premises or might spill over into the premises' car park. The fact that the disorder has come to the licensed premises may have nothing to do with them. In such a case the disorder would have no connection or link with the licensed premises other than its accidental geographical propinquity to them. That could not constitute a relevant association between the licensed premises and the disorder for the purpose of regulating such premises."

We are grateful to Cornerstone Chambers for bringing the Judgment to our attention.

 

Law correct at the date of publication.
Back to Latest News