London Borough of Hounslow v Aslim

A breach of a special treatment licence condition concerning age and written parental consent may be an offence of strict liability. The statutory presumption requiring mens rea is displaced where the language, nature and purpose of the regulatory scheme make that implication compellingly clear. A licence-holder’s reasonable belief about a child’s age is therefore irrelevant where the prosecution proves that the child was under 16 and the required written consent was absent. Licensing conditions requiring complete treatment records must be applied according to their terms. Clear agreed evidence of incomplete records cannot be rejected on an unsupported uncertainty about whether the documents relate to licensed treatments.

The London Borough of Hounslow appealed by way of case stated from the Ealing Magistrates’ Court’s acquittal of the respondent on two offences under section 14(2) of the London Local Authorities Act 1991.

The first charge concerned body piercing of a 14-year-old without written parental consent, despite the respondent’s belief that the child was over 16. The second concerned failures to keep complete records of special treatments. The magistrates asked whether the first offence required proof that the respondent had failed to take reasonable steps to verify age, and whether incomplete records justified acquittal.

1. First offence. Section 14(2) required proof that a licence was in force, that the premises were used as an establishment for special treatment, and that the use was otherwise than in accordance with the licence conditions. The relevant condition permitted non-nipple and non-genital piercing of a child under 16 only with written parental consent.
2. The court applied the principles in Gammon (Hong Kong) Limited v The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1985] AC 1. The offence was regulatory rather than truly criminal in character, concerned public safety, health and the protection of children, and strict liability would promote the statutory objects by encouraging vigilance. The presumption in favour of mens rea was therefore displaced by necessary implication.
3. The respondent’s reasonable belief, photographic evidence and telephone enquiries could not provide a defence. Once the prosecution proved that the child was in fact under 16 and that written parental consent had not been obtained, the age element was established. Question 1 was answered in the negative.
4. Second offence. The licence conditions required records of all body-piercing treatments, the client’s details and age where relevant, the client’s or parent’s signature, and the name of the person providing treatment. The forms produced by the appellant identified the relevant special treatments. The agreed evidence showed breaches of those requirements, including missing names, addresses and treatment-provider details. The magistrates’ uncertainty about the status of the forms was unsupported and their reasoning was deficient.
5. The appeal was allowed on both questions. The case was remitted to the magistrates’ court with directions to convict on both offences. Sentence was left to a further hearing, at which the respondent could advance mitigation.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated allowed against the Ealing Magistrates’ Court’s acquittal; the matter was remitted with directions to convict on both charges.