Carmarthenshire County Council v Llanelli Magistrates

On an appeal from a premises-licence review, the decision-maker must apply the statutory duty to take such steps as are considered necessary for promoting the licensing objectives. A general assessment of whether revocation is necessary and proportionate is insufficient if it disregards those objectives.

The decision-maker must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance and give reasons for departing from it. It must address the particular harm arising from sales of alcohol to children and give proper consideration to relevant representations from responsible authorities. The absence of a connection between the premises and local crime and disorder does not determine the issue.

The Council revoked a premises licence after test purchases established that alcohol had been sold to three 15-year-olds. The licensing sub-committee considered the sales inconsistent with the licensing objectives and found revocation necessary and proportionate.

On appeal, the magistrates allowed the licence-holder’s appeal and ordered the Council to pay his costs. The Council sought judicial review, challenging both decisions and seeking a declaration concerning the approach required on an appeal under the Licensing Act 2003.

1. The magistrates’ decision was flawed and the declaration sought by the Council was granted. The licence was not revoked by the High Court.
2. Under section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003, the appellate decision-maker must have regard to the application and relevant representations and take such steps under section 52(4) as it considers necessary for promoting the licensing objectives. The magistrates instead treated the issue as whether revocation was necessary and proportionate, without properly applying those statutory objectives.
3. The magistrates failed to consider expressly or impliedly the prevention of children from harm and the prevention of crime and disorder. They also failed to comply with the duty under section 4(3) to have regard to guidance issued under section 182. The guidance required sales of alcohol to minors to be treated particularly seriously. A decision-maker need not work through the guidance slavishly, but must give adequate reasons and explain any departure from it, as stated in R (Donald Thwaites Plc) v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court [2008] EWHC 838 (Admin) and R (BassetLaw District Council) v Worksop Magistrates Court [2008] EWHC 3530 (Admin).
4. The magistrates failed to assess the harm caused by supplying alcohol to 15-year-olds, including the matters identified in the guidance, and wrongly treated the absence of a connection between the premises and crime in the village as decisive.
5. The magistrates also failed to consider the representations of Trading Standards, the police and Children’s Services, all of which were responsible authorities. Such views had to receive some weight.
6. Because the reasoning supporting the appeal decision was flawed, the related costs decision was also unsound. The order requiring the Council to pay the interested party’s costs was quashed. There was no order for costs in the judicial review proceedings.

The Council brought judicial review proceedings with the leave of HHJ Curran QC, sitting as a judge of the Administrative Court. The High Court quashed the magistrates’ costs order and granted a declaration, but did not revoke the premises licence.