Marathon Restaurant v London Borough of Camden

On a licensing appeal, deciding whether restrictions are necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives is principally a matter of judgment. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the licensing decision should be reversed. Hearsay evidence is admissible, and its weight depends on its source, nature and inherent probability. A tribunal may rely on official contemporaneous records, direct evidence and supporting CCTV while giving limited weight to specifically rebutted hearsay. Recent improvements in management do not prevent reduced licensing hours where serious disorder or nuisance continues, particularly during the early hours. Reasons need only be intelligible and adequate to explain the conclusions on the principal controversial issues; they may be stated concisely.

The claimant challenged the dismissal of an appeal by District Judge McPhee concerning the review of a premises licence for The Marathon restaurant. The London Borough of Camden had reduced the late-night hours for late-night refreshment and alcohol sales and modified the licence conditions. The District Judge upheld those measures and imposed additional conditions.

The appeal alleged that the District Judge had acted irrationally, imposed disproportionate conditions, made findings unsupported by the evidence, failed to apply the burden of proof, and gave inadequate or incoherent reasons. The central issue was whether the District Judge had erred in law in concluding that the restrictions were necessary and proportionate to address continuing crime, disorder and public nuisance.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant bore the burden of showing that the District Judge’s decision was wrong and that the licensing authority’s discretion should have been exercised differently.
2. Under the approach stated in R (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 and Daniel Thwaites Plc v Wirral Borough Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 838 (Admin), the assessment of necessary and proportionate licensing conditions is substantially a judgmental exercise. The appellate court must pay careful attention to the reasons given below.
3. Hearsay evidence was admissible. The District Judge was entitled to distinguish official police records from gossip or speculation, to prefer the designated premises supervisor’s evidence where specific matters had not been challenged, and to accept direct evidence supported by CCTV. His assessment of the evidence was fair and open to him.
4. The findings that the premises attracted heavily intoxicated customers, generated a continuing external congregation and nuisance, and had not adequately addressed the problems were not inconsistent with a finding that the existing management should remain in place. Management improvements did not establish that longer hours were safe or that the licensing objectives were being promoted.
5. The District Judge’s reasons were sufficient. Applying South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33, the reasons were intelligible, addressed the principal controversial issues and disclosed how the factual and legal questions had been resolved. The Council’s restrictions and the additional conditions were therefore lawfully upheld.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s decision was dismissed. The court upheld the reduced licensed hours and additional conditions.
• Highbury and Islington Magistrates’ Court: District Judge McPhee dismissed the appeal on 9 April 2010 and upheld the licensing restrictions imposed following the review.
• London Borough of Camden: The Council reviewed the premises licence on 16 September 2009 and reduced the late-night hours, modifying the licence conditions.