Divisional Court Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837003400303 |
| Published date | 01 July 1970 |
| Date | 01 July 1970 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
LICENSEE'S
LIABILITY
FOR
DRINKING
OUTSIDE
PERMITTED
HOURS
Tuck v.
Robson
THE above case (1970, IW.L.R. 741) raised the question whether
the holder of a justices' on-licence aids
and
abets the con-
sumption
of
intoxicating liquor outside
permitted
hours
if
he
takes no active steps to prevent its consumption.
The
facts giving rise
to this case were
that
at
11.23
p.m.
on the
II
April 1969
the
prose-
cutor, police inspector
Thomas
Robson accompanied by a sergeant
and
aconstable entered
the
public house in south-east
London
of
which the defendant Alan
Tuck
was
the
licensee.
On
entering the
premises the police found twenty persons in
the
saloon
bar
twelve
of
whom
were consuming alcoholic drinks
and
some of
them
were
seated
at
tables.
The
defendant was by a store
cupboard
behind
the
saloon bar. He told the prosecutor
that
at I I
p.m.
he
had
switched
off
some of the
main
lights in the saloon
bar
and
five minutes
later
he
had
called
out
"Glasses please".
When
told
that
he would be
charged
with aiding
and
abetting the consumption of intoxicating
liquor outside permitted hours
contrary
to s.59 of the Licensing Act,
1964,
the
defendant said, "1 thought
that
if 1called
out
'Time'
and
asked the customers to leave
that
is all 1
am
required to
do."
Three
informations were preferred against the defendant
each
of
which charged
him
with
aiding
and
abetting a
named
customer
with contravention of the above provision of
the
Licensing Act, 1964.
On
the
29
May
1969 the informations
came
before a Metropolitan
stipendiary magistrate,
Mr.
C. S. Burt
Q.C.,
who found the offences
proved
and
imposed a fine
of
£5
on each information
with
15 guineas
costs.
The
defendant appealed by case stated on grounds only one
of
which was pursued
in
the
High
Court. This was whether on
the
admitted
facts the defendant was guilty of
any
offence.
On
the 18
and
19
February
1970 the
appeal
came
before a Divisional
Court
consisting of
Lord
Parker
C.J.,
Ashworth
and
Donaldson
JJ.
who
dismissed the
appeal
for reasons given in the
judgment
of
Lord
Parker.
After referring to
the
facts summarised above his Lordship
said
that
the
general question raised by this case was
in
what
cir-
cumstances does passive tolerance of
an
offence constitute aiding
and
153
To continue reading
Request your trial