Keep Streets Live Campaign Ltd v London Borough of Camden

A licensing policy regulating street entertainment is sufficiently certain if, viewed as a whole, it enables a person, with legal advice where necessary, to foresee whether a licence is required or a condition may be breached. Absolute certainty is not required, particularly where the regulated activity is evolving.

A local authority may rely on complaints, consultation responses, police evidence and councillors’ experience when deciding whether statutory nuisance, inconvenience or safety risks justify regulation. A borough-wide licensing scheme may be proportionate where it is a tailored, light-touch response, and alternative reactive powers do not provide an equivalent solution.

The claimant, a not-for-profit organisation supporting street performers, challenged Camden’s decision of 11 November 2013 to adopt Part V of the London Local Authorities Act 2000 and approve a borough-wide street entertainment policy.

The policy required most buskers to obtain a licence, subject to specified exemptions and standard conditions. The claimant argued that the policy was insufficiently certain, had been adopted without satisfying the statutory conditions, and disproportionately interfered with freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

1. Outcome. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, but the substantive claim was dismissed.
2. Certainty. The statutory expression “entertainment in a street” bears its ordinary everyday meaning. The requirement is sufficient, not absolute, certainty. Some borderline cases are inevitable in a developing performance art, but the policy enabled a person, with advice if necessary, to identify when a licence was likely to be required. The policy was therefore sufficiently comprehensible and consistent with the principles in Rimmington and Misra.
3. Statutory basis. The complaints, consultation responses, police evidence and councillors’ observations formed a sufficient evidential basis for the Council to conclude that the requirements of section 33(2) of the London Local Authorities Act 2000 were met. The weight to be given to individual complaints was for the Council. The structure of the report and resolutions supported the inference that the Council had addressed the correct questions.
4. The alternative construction that section 33(2) imposed no preconditions where Part V was applied to the whole administrative area had considerable force, but it was unnecessary to decide the point. If adopted, that construction would remain subject to ordinary public law safeguards and Article 10 requirements.
5. Article 10 and proportionality. Busking is artistic expression, but it is not among the most important forms of free expression and Article 10 operates at a low level in this context. There is no Convention right to perform in a particular public place. The policy pursued legitimate aims, including preventing nuisance, disorder and risks to public safety.
6. The court assessed proportionality in the circumstances as a whole, allowing the local authority a margin of appreciation. Existing powers were reactive, difficult to administer or incomplete. The borough-wide licensing scheme was tailored, transparent and relatively inexpensive. Its standard and special licensing procedures were not unduly onerous. The policy was therefore necessary and proportionate.

The final order and costs were left for further submissions.