Breathalysers in pubs and clubs - a cause for concern?

Increasingly a ‘hot' topic for discussion with news of planned introduction of breathalysers in Birmingham (where ‘more than 40 pubs have signed up'), following trials or proposals in Croydon, Norwich, Durham and Plymouth - and elsewhere.

Indeed this topic was discussed at Monday's meeting of the licensing group of Business in Leisure (formerly BISL) and was also discussed at the National Pubwatch Conference yesterday, with a presentation from Norwich police (see below), which provides a useful example of the scheme in practice.

The idea is that pubs and clubs voluntarily sign up to breathalyse customers on entry and if they fail the test, admission should be refused. To us, this seems a dangerous precedent.

In the first place it could be argued that it removes the discretion on admission from door staff, it could be a catalyst for confrontation or issue, being drunk is not defined and takes on different form in different people, a failure to pass the test should not necessarily lead to a presumption of being drunk - and whereas the threshold for these machines is currently set at twice the drink drive limit, what is to prevent this limit being reduced once a scheme is established.

We have a concern about a ‘voluntary' initiative such as this, imposed in an apparently blanket manner.

In Norwich, the police have apparently being operating a voluntary scheme together with town centre venues since late 2013. After an initial trial period of three months the scheme was extended and continues today. The police insist that it is entirely voluntary and have no plans to make it compulsory through the use of licensing conditions. The presentation was made jointly with the ‘trade' who expressed their support for the scheme on the grounds that it made their job easier by demonstrating to potential customers that they are drunk and refusing them entry. Both the police and the operators maintain that the discretion of the door staff remains who may decide that despite recording a positive breath test admission may be granted though this does seem unlikely.

According to JG&P consultant Martin Rawlings who was at the meeting, the general consensus seemed to be that the use of breathalysers could be a good way of combatting pre-loading and no doubt the venues using them will sell more drink as a consequence. There did not appear to be any particular resistance from customers who it was maintained generally accepted the refusal to entry. Incidentally, it appeared that the venues were sharing information so that failed test would be made known to other venues.

After initially sharing the results with the police during the testing period information is not now passed to the police as to the number of tests and or failures.

The main concern expressed by the conference was whether the use of breathalysers would be extended beyond the late night economy and whether the voluntary use would become mandatory. In the short term at least it would appear that police forces using them or contemplating using them would confine them to the Late Night Economy and their use would remain voluntary. The chief concern at Pubwatch however remains the imposition of their use through conditions. While Norwich police can and did give the assurance that they would not seek to impose conditions on their use, this is not a guarantee in the rest of the country or even in Norwich in the future.

In Durham, the breathalyser initiative is apparently part of a wider package of measures being put forward by the Durham City Safety Group aimed at tackling the City's ‘safety and drinking culture', following the drowning of three students in the River Wear over a 14 month period.

Operators should perhaps proceed with care (and with the benefit of legal advice if desired) in contemplating the introduction or imposition of breathalysers at their premises.