Lalli v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Anor

A summary review under the Licensing Act 2003 may be invoked where licensed premises have a relevant connection or link with serious crime or serious disorder. The legislation does not require a pattern, persistence or repetition. A single serious crime or incident of serious disorder may suffice. The senior police officer’s certificate records an opinion, and the licensing authority need not judicially review its validity before conducting the summary review. The authority’s functions concern whether interim or final steps are necessary or appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. The certificate may be challenged by judicial review, but no particularly stringent standard applies. Summary review is preventive rather than penal and is compatible with the Convention rights identified in the judgment.

The claimant held a premises licence authorising the sale of alcohol at a public house. Following a serious assault at the premises, a senior police officer certified under section 53A(1)(b) of the Licensing Act 2003 that the premises were associated with serious crime. The chief officer of police then applied for a summary review. The licensing authority imposed interim suspension and later revoked the licence, although the revocation was subject to an appeal to the magistrates’ court.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that a single incident could not establish the necessary association and that the licensing authority had to examine the certificate’s validity before proceeding. The central issues were the meaning of association under section 53A and the authority’s function on receiving an apparently valid certificate.

1. Nature of the procedure. A summary review is a preventive licensing process, not a penal or draconian sanction. Its speed and provision for interim steps do not make it incompatible with article 6 or article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The statutory safeguards require interim steps to be necessary or appropriate for promoting the licensing objectives, rather than imposed as punishment.
2. Meaning of association. For section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003, the premises must have a connection or link with serious crime or serious disorder that could be relevant to their regulation. The legislation deliberately leaves the nature of that connection to the opinion of a senior police officer. Mere geographical proximity is insufficient, but the connection may arise from the conduct of management, staff or customers.
3. No legal requirement exists for a pattern, persistence, repetition or more than one incident. A single serious crime or single incident of serious disorder may establish the necessary association. The crime need only satisfy Parliament’s statutory classification of serious crime.
4. Certificate and licensing authority. The certificate and the chief officer’s decision to apply for review are distinct matters. The certificate merely enables the application to be made. The licensing authority must conduct the summary review even if it considers that the information available to the certifying officer did not establish the association. It must focus on whether interim or final steps promote the licensing objectives and is not conducting an appeal or judicial review of the certificate.
5. The authority may treat the application as valid where it is accompanied by a certificate apparently satisfying section 53A(1) which has not been quashed. A certificate may be challenged by judicial review, but no particularly stringent standard of review is required. On the facts, the certificate was plainly one that the senior officer was entitled to give.
6. Disposition. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

First instance judicial review. The judgment states that the claimant had appealed the licensing authority’s revocation decision to the Thames Magistrates’ Court, but that appeal was not determined in this claim.