Khan v Coventry Magistrates Court & Anor

On a de novo appeal from a licensing authority, the magistrates’ court may consider any relevant evidence concerning the licensing objectives as they apply at the date of the appeal hearing. This includes later events and hearsay evidence, whose admissibility is distinct from the weight to be given to it. The court may also consider whether the circumstances of an under-age sale indicated that a statutory defence might be available. A licensing decision must balance the licensing objectives against the licence holder’s property interests and remain proportionate. Permission for judicial review requires an arguable case; where the magistrates acted within their remit, considered relevant evidence and reached findings reasonably open to them, permission should be refused.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the decision of Coventry Magistrates’ Court, which had dismissed his statutory appeal against the revocation of his alcohol licence by Coventry City Council’s licensing committee. The magistrates’ appeal hearing was de novo and took place several months after the licensing authority’s decision.

The claimant challenged the magistrates’ consideration of later evidence, evidence concerning an under-age sale, alleged Revenue and Customs breaches, the proportionality assessment, and the adequacy of the reasons. The central issue was whether any of those matters disclosed an arguable jurisdictional, factual or legal error warranting judicial review.

1. Permission and scope of review. The court considered first whether the claim was arguable. If it was not, permission would be refused without proceeding to a substantive judicial review hearing.
2. De novo appeal. The magistrates’ court stood in the shoes of the licensing committee and heard the appeal afresh. It was therefore entitled to receive relevant evidence relating to the licensing objectives as they applied at the date of the appeal hearing. Evidence concerning events after the statutory period for representations was not excluded merely because it had not been before the licensing authority.
3. Under-age sale. The magistrates were entitled to examine the circumstances of the admitted sale, including whether the claimant might have had a defence to the criminal offence. That examination could assist the claimant and was within the court’s remit. On the evidence, the finding that the claimant had made no effort to check the purchaser’s age was reasonably open to the magistrates.
4. Evidence and proportionality. Evidence of apparent breaches of Revenue and Customs requirements was relevant. Hearsay affected weight rather than admissibility. The magistrates had addressed proportionality by balancing the licensing objectives and community needs against the claimant’s property interests, including the financial consequences of revocation. Their obscure reference to a fair trial did not demonstrate that they had applied the wrong test, because the surrounding reasoning showed that proportionality had been considered.
5. Outcome. The magistrates were entitled to find repeated under-age sales, inadequate preventive measures, failures to comply with police instructions and continuing regulatory breaches. Those findings supported revocation. No arguable error was shown. Permission was refused, the application was dismissed, and the interested party was awarded £2,875 plus VAT in costs.

The judgment itself was a permission application for judicial review.

• Coventry City Council licensing committee: revoked the claimant’s alcohol licence.
• Coventry Magistrates’ Court: dismissed the claimant’s de novo appeal against revocation.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused permission for judicial review and awarded the interested party £2,875 plus VAT in costs.