Bassetlaw District Council, R (on the application of) v Workshop Magistrates Court

On a review of a premises licence involving criminal activity connected with licensed premises, the licensing authority must consider the guidance directed specifically to crime-related reviews. Its function is not to punish, but deterrence may properly be considered when promoting the licensing objectives. The authority must act proportionately and in the interests of the wider community, rather than solely to remedy the immediate breach. An appellate body exercising the statutory appeal function must adopt the same approach. Where it departs from applicable guidance, it must identify the departure and give reasons for it.

The claimant licensing authority sought judicial review of a district judge’s decision allowing an appeal against a one-month suspension of a premises licence. The suspension followed unlawful sales of alcohol to two 14-year-old girls during test purchases. The district judge substituted additional licence conditions, largely repeating existing requirements. The central issues were whether the statutory review powers were punitive or merely remedial, whether the crime-related provisions of the Secretary of State’s guidance applied, and whether the district judge had properly addressed that guidance and explained any departure from it.

1. Application allowed. The district judge erred in law in determining the appeal against the licensing authority’s review decision.
2. Under Licensing Act 2003, section 52, the available steps include modifying licence conditions, suspending the licence for up to three months, and revoking it. The statutory purpose is promotion of the licensing objectives. The powers are not punitive in the strict sense.
3. The review nevertheless fell within the guidance provisions dealing with criminal activity connected with licensed premises. The sale of alcohol to minors was expressly identified as activity to be treated particularly seriously. In that context, the decision-maker had to consider the interests of the wider community and the prevention of crime. Deterrence was therefore a legitimate consideration, alongside necessity and proportionality.
4. The district judge confined his reasoning to remedying the breach and applied only the general guidance concerning remedial and proportionate action. That approach failed to engage with the additional considerations applicable to crime-related reviews and undermined the decision.
5. The district judge also failed to explain why he was departing from the applicable guidance. An appellate body must have regard to the guidance in the same way as the licensing authority and must give reasons for any departure.
6. The substituted conditions, most of which already existed, might independently have been regarded as perversely minimal given the sale of alcohol to 14-year-olds. The court did not need to determine the separate challenge concerning insufficient regard to the licensing authority’s original decision. No order for costs was made.

The judgment describes an appeal to a district judge from the licensing authority’s review decision. The district judge allowed that appeal and substituted licence conditions. The Administrative Court allowed the licensing authority’s application for judicial review of the district judge’s decision.