Blackpool Council, R (on the application of) v Howitt

The licensing objective of preventing crime is not confined to conduct causing disorder. The words “crime and disorder” may operate disjunctively. An offence of permitting smoking in smoke-free premises is therefore relevant to that objective, even though it is not itself disorderly. Licensing authorities must have regard to statutory guidance, but must not construe it as if it were legislation. Statutory language may apply to later developments where those developments fall within the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used.

Blackpool Council appealed by way of case stated against a Deputy District Judge’s decision allowing Mr Howitt’s appeal from the revocation of his premises licence for a sports bar. Mr Howitt had been convicted of offences under section 8 of the Health Act 2006 for permitting smoking and had indicated that he intended to continue doing so.

The central issue was whether evidence of unlawful smoking was relevant to the licensing objective of promoting the prevention of crime under section 4(2)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003.

1. Appeal allowed. The Deputy District Judge had been wrong to decide that evidence of unlawful smoking was irrelevant to the licensing objective of preventing crime. The licensing authority’s decision was restored (paras [19]–[21]).
2. An offence under section 8 of the Health Act 2006 is a criminal offence because it is punishable on summary conviction by a fine. Although permitting smoking is not itself a crime involving disorder, “crime” and “disorder” in section 4(2)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003 are not necessarily conjoined. The word “and” may be used disjunctively. Serious criminal activities identified in the Secretary of State’s guidance need not involve disorder on the premises (paras [11]–[18]).
3. The guidance issued under section 182, to which licensing authorities must have regard under section 4(3), assists the statutory context but is not to be construed as if it were a statute. The absence of police representation was irrelevant. A licensing review concerns promotion of the licensing objectives, and is distinct from the culpability of an individual prosecuted under the Health Act 2006; revocation was not impermissible double punishment (paras [9]–[14]).
4. The fact that the smoking offence was created after the Licensing Act 2003 was enacted did not prevent it from falling within “crime”. Statutory language may apply to changed future circumstances where they fall within the words’ ordinary and natural meaning. The reasoning in Quintavalle [2003] UKHL 13 was applied (para [15]).
5. In light of Mr Howitt’s convictions and stated intention to continue permitting smoking, the licensing authority was entitled to conclude that revocation promoted the licensing objective of preventing crime. No order for costs was made because the appeal raised an issue of public interest (paras [19]–[20], [48]).

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed Blackpool Council’s appeal by way of case stated against the Deputy District Judge’s decision of 9 April 2008. The licensing authority’s revocation decision was restored.