Tozers help nightclub owner win case

Wednesday, 16 June 2010 00:00

Graham Bond successfully represented a nightclub owner in Cornwall following an application being made by Environmental Health to review the licence and to have the terminal hour cut back to midnight which would have meant the business closing.

Although there were a number of allegations supported by residents in the neighbourhood about noise, the primary concern arose from groups of patrons of the nightclub leaving to smoke in the street where they were making considerable noise. This was compounded when large groups would leave at closing time at 2 to 2.30 am.

The difficult issue at the hearing was that the Environmental Health and Police both took the view that they had no power to deal with the problem. Environmental Health did not feel that they could use any of their powers because they could not bring an action against the premises and there was no power to bring it against a group of people in the street. The Police did not consider that they had any powers because people in the street were not being disorderly. Although there were occasional raised voices, the real complaint arose simply from the noise of conversation from quite a large group of people smoking and chatting.

Environmental Health sought to rely upon a recent decision The Queen on the application of Hope and Glory Public House v. City of Westminster Magistrates to suggest that the application to revoke the licence was a proper way to proceed.

Graham Bond was successful in arguing that that was incorrect and that the case could be distinguished. In the Hope and Glory case the public house had been serving drinks and encouraging customers to take them outside thus in effect treating the street as an extension of the premises. Here the situation was quite different because the management was passive and certainly not seeking to encourage their customers to leave the premises even on a temporary basis. Graham argued that the guidance was quite specific that it was not the responsibility of the licensee to regulate the behaviour of customers in the street, it was a matter of the individual's social responsibility.

In the event the Committee accepted that argument and decided merely to tighten up some of the conditions on the licence.