House of Lords
| Published date | 01 February 1987 |
| Date | 01 February 1987 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838705100103 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
HOUSE
OF
LORDS
SEX
ESTABLISHMENT%LICENSING
Westminster City Council
v.
Croyalgrange Ltd. and Another
Since the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982,
local authorities have been able to control
sex
establishments within
their area by adopting a licensing system in accordance with
provisions set out in Schedule
3
of that Act. Where such a system of
control is in operation, paragraph 6 of Schedule
3
prohibits the use
of
premises as a sex establishment except under a local authority
licence, or where the licence requirement has been waived by the
local authority or where application for a licence has been made but
has not been determined by the local authority. In
Westminster City
Council
v.
Croyalgrange Ltd. and Another
[1986]
2
All
E.R. 353,
the defendants had been charged with offences under paragraph 20
of
knowingly using or knowingly causing or permitting the use of
premises as a
sex
establishment in contravention of paragraph 6.
At the trial of the defendant company and one of its directors for
the offences under the Act it was suggested that it was honestly
believed that an application for a local authority licence had been
made but not determined. In response it was contended that once
the prosecution had proved the defendant knew the premises were
being used as a sex establishment the burden was cast upon the
defendant
to
prove he fell within one of the exceptions, that is to
prove the existence of a licence, waiver or pending application. This
submission was rejected by the stipendiary magistrate who
ultimately found that “although considerable suspicion existed”,
the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt the
defendants had had the requisite knowledge.
The prosecution’s appeal to the Divisional Court was
unsuccessful and the further appeal to the House of Lords raised
two issues: first, whether it is necessary for the prosecution to prove
not only that the defendant knows
of
the use to which the premises
are being put but also that he knows that such use is in contravention
of
paragraph
6
of Schedule
3
(i.e. that there is no licence, no waiver
49
To continue reading
Request your trial