Hall & Woodhouse Ltd. v The Borough & County of the Town of Poole

Section 136(1)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003 imposes liability on a person who actually carries on or attempts to carry on a licensable activity otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorisation. Holding a premises licence does not, by itself, establish that the holder carried on activities at the premises. Nor does the provision impute the acts of tenants, managers or other third parties to the licence holder. In a landlord-and-tenant case, whether the landlord carried on the activity is a question of fact. The landlord’s business of letting licensed premises remains distinct from the tenant’s conduct. Criminal liability therefore requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the defendant’s own conduct, subject to the statutory due-diligence defence.

Hall & Woodhouse Ltd., the owner and premises licence holder of a public house, appealed by way of case stated against convictions imposed by a district judge sitting at Bournemouth Magistrates Court. The convictions concerned four breaches of premises-licence conditions, including late entertainment, fire-safety breaches and consumption of alcohol in the beer garden after the permitted time.

The premises had been let to a tenant, who employed the manager and designated premises supervisor. The tenant and manager pleaded guilty, but the appellant denied that it had itself carried on the relevant licensable activities. The prosecution proceeded under section 136(1)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003, not section 136(1)(b). The central questions were whether third-party acts were imputed to the licence holder and whether the appellant was, on the facts, carrying on the activities.

1. The appeal was allowed and all four convictions under section 136(1)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003 were quashed. The two questions in the case stated were answered in the negative.
2. Section 136(1)(a) is directed to persons who, as a matter of fact, actually carry on or attempt to carry on a licensable activity on or from premises otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorisation. The language of subsection (2), concerning particular performers and participants, and the due-diligence defence in section 139, both support a focus on the defendant’s actual conduct.
3. The provision is not directed at premises-licence holders as such. A licence holder is not automatically liable merely because an activity is carried on at premises covered by the licence. If the legislature had intended automatic liability, it could have made express provision, as it did in other provisions applying specifically to licence holders or identifying them as liable persons.
4. The acts of tenants, managers or other third parties are not imputed to the licence holder under section 136(1)(a). The provision does not create criminal vicarious liability. A landlord may itself carry on a licensable activity notwithstanding a letting, but that is a question of fact. The mere existence of a tenancy agreement imposing compliance obligations does not establish that the landlord carried on the tenant’s activities.
5. The eligibility language in section 16(1)(a), permitting an application by a person carrying on a business which involves use of premises for licensable activities, is materially different. A landlord’s business of letting premises may fall within that language, but it remains distinct from carrying on the licensable activities themselves. The court rejected the submission that the licensing regime necessarily treats the licence holder as carrying on all activities at the premises.
6. The district judge’s reasoning impermissibly moved from the appellant’s status as licence applicant and holder to liability under section 136(1)(a). The case stated contained no evidence capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant itself carried on the activities. A defendant’s costs order was made for the magistrates’ court and Administrative Court proceedings, with amounts to be determined by the appropriate authorities.

• Bournemouth Magistrates Court: the district judge convicted the appellant of four offences under section 136(1)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003 and imposed fines of £250 for each offence.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal by way of case stated was allowed. The convictions were quashed.