Police for the County of Leicestershire v Tatam

In deciding whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a justices’ licence, the central question is whether the applicant can be relied upon to run licensed premises in a competent and law-abiding manner. Matters affecting credibility and probity may properly be taken into account, but they do not automatically determine the outcome. A reviewing court should not interfere merely because it would have given particular factors greater weight. An error of law requires a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable licensing committee could have reached it.

The Chief Officer of Police appealed by way of case stated against the decision of the Leicestershire Licensing Committee, which found Shirley Dawn Tatam fit and proper to hold a justices’ on-licence. The Committee had found that she had been dishonest when discussing an incident involving local authority officers, but also found that the premises had been well run during the preceding five months. The central questions were the proper test for fitness and propriety and whether the Committee’s conclusion was legally perverse.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Committee was entitled to answer “Yes” to the question whether the respondent was fit and proper to hold a justices’ licence.
2. Under section 3(1) of the Licensing Act 1964, the essential question was whether the licensee could be relied upon to run the premises in a competent and law-abiding manner. The court adopted the formulation stated by Lord Bingham in Regina v Crown Court at Warrington, Ex parte RBNB [2002] 1 WLR 1994.
3. The Committee was entitled, and should, take the respondent’s lack of frankness with the police and the court into account. Its findings did not show that those matters had been ignored. The reasonable inference was that, having considered them, the Committee concluded that her subsequent conduct demonstrated that she could nevertheless be relied upon to run the premises properly.
4. The challenge could succeed only if the Committee’s conclusion was perverse: namely, a decision which no reasonable licensing committee could have reached. It was insufficient to argue merely that insufficient weight had been given to particular factors. The Committee’s reasons were simple but adequate, and its conclusion was unimpeachable.
5. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs. Although the police had been entitled to raise genuine concerns before the Committee, the appeal had no realistic prospect of success and went beyond the function that could be pursued without costs risk.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the Leicestershire Licensing Committee dated 1 December 2004.