London County Council v Bermondsey Bioscope Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1911 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Cinematograph - Licence - Condition as to closing on Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas Day - Validity -
A county council, in granting a licence under s. 2 of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, to use certain premises for a cinematograph exhibition, for the purposes of which inflammable films are used, have power to insert therein a condition that the promises shall not be opened under the licence on Sundays, Good Friday, or Christmas Day.
CASE stated by a metropolitan police magistrate.
An information was laid by the appellants against the respondents for that they, being the occupiers of the London Bridge Picture Palace and Cinematograph Theatre, on Sunday, February 27, 1910, unlawfully allowed the premises to be used for an exhibition of pictures or other optical effects by means of a cinematograph, for the purposes of which inflammable films were used, in contravention of the conditions upon which the appellants granted a licence relating to the premises under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, whereby the respondents became liable to the penalty prescribed by s. 3 of the Act.
Upon the hearing of the information it was proved that the appellants on January 19, 1910, granted to one Stockton, for and on behalf of the respondents, a licence to use the above-named premises for an exhibition therein of pictures and other optical effects by means of a cinematograph or other similar apparatus, for the purposes of which inflammable films were used. The licence was granted on certain terms and conditions and under certain restrictions, one of which was “that the premises be not opened under the licence on Sundays, Good Friday, or Christmas Day.” The exhibition was to be subject to the regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, dated December 20, 1909.F1
On Sunday, February 27, 1910, during the currency of the licence the premises were visited by a police inspector, who found an exhibition of pictures and other optical effects by means of a cinematograph with music then going on before a number of the public who had paid for admission thereto. With the cinematograph inflammable films were being used.
It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the Cinematograph Act, 1909F2, was passed for the purpose of securing the safety of the public at cinematograph and other exhibitions; that the title and the various provisions of the Act shewed that such was its object; that the effect of ss. 1 and 2 was to render unnecessary any licence for premises at which non-inflammable films were used with cinematograph or other similar apparatus; that the regulations of the Secretary of State hereinbefore referred to were all regulations made with a view to carry out the purposes of the Act, namely, to secure the safety of the public in such exhibitions of pictures, &c., produced by means of inflammable films; and that the appellants had no power in law to impose upon the holder of the licence the condition above set forth, as such condition was beyond the scope of the Act and was ultra vires of the appellants, having regard to their duty of granting licences in pursuance of the Act. The following cases were referred to in support of the respondents' contention: Fielding v. Morley CorporationF3, Reg. v. West Riding County CouncilF4, and Rossi v. Edinburgh Corporation.F5
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that they had the legal power to impose the condition on the holder of the licence; that the condition was not inconsistent with or repugnant to the regulations of the Secretary of State; that the language of s. 2 of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, gave to the appellants discretion to impose such conditions as they determined were fit and proper to apply to premises to be used for the purposes of public exhibition; and that the condition only prohibited, in the form of a condition attached to the licence, what was already prohibited by the
The magistrate was of opinion that the respondents' contentions were correct, and that by reason of the scope and purposes of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, the condition was ultra vires, and he dismissed the information.
The question for the Court was whether, upon the above facts, he came to a correct determination in point of law.
Danckwerts, K.C. (Bodkin with him), for the appellants. The condition in the licence that the exhibition shall not be opened on Sundays, Good Friday, or Christmas Day is good in law. It is the duty of the appellants to consider not only the safety of the public, with regard to which regulations are made by the Secretary of State under s. 1 of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, but also the public order. Sect. 2, sub-s. 1, of the Act shews that power is given to the appellants to refuse a licence on the ground that an applicant is unfit to hold it. While the power of the Secretary of State is limited by s. 1 to making regulations for securing safety, s. 2 contains no such limitation on the power of the appellants. There is no reason for restricting the powers given to the appellants by s. 2, sub-s. 1, to the same powers as are given to the Secretary of State. The appellants may make such regulations as they think fit, provided that those regulations are not in conflict with the regulations made by the Secretary of State. This condition stands upon the same footing as a by-law made by a public representative body and ought to be supported: Kruse v. Johnson.F6 It does not, under the form of regulating the exhibition, prohibit it altogether, as was the case of the by-laws in Municipal Corporation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Greater London Council, ex parte Blackburn
...1911 the Courts held that a condition saying that the premises should not be opened on Sundays was valid - see the Bioscope Case (1911) 1 King's Bench, p. 445. Soon afterwards the County Councils began to insert a condition that no film shown should be of a licentious or indecent character......
-
Cream Holdings Ltd and Others v Banerjee and another
...onerous criterion, such as the need to show that there is 'certainly a case to be tried' ( Jones -v—Pacaya Rubber and Produce Co Ltd ([1911] 1 KB 445 at 457) per Buckley LJ) which corresponds more closely with what judges generally treated as sufficient to justify their considering the bal......
-
British Amusement Catering Trades Association v Westminster City Council
...licensing authority had power to impose conditions unrelated to safety considerations (see L.C.C. v. Bermondsey Bioscope Company Ltd. (1911) 1 KB 445. 7The 1909 Act was amended by the Cinematograph Act 1952. Section 1 of the 1952 Act provided that, subject to certain exemptions the 1909 Ac......
-
National Director of Public Prosecutions v RO Cook Properties (Pty) Ltd; National Director of Public Prosecutions v 37 Gillespie Street Durban (Pty) Ltd and Another; National Director of Public Prosecutions v Seevnarayan
...(2) SA 414 (O) at 418B - E Law Union and Rock Insurance Co Ltd v Carmichael's Executor 1917 AD 593 at 597 LCC v Bermondsey Bioscope Co [1911] KB 445 at 451 Luitingh v Minister of Defence 1996 (2) D SA 909 (CC) in para [11] Mame Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Publications Control Board 1974 (4) SA ......
-
The Mareva journey - from the atlantic to the Caribbean
...L.J., at 506 per Cotton L.J. 34 Smith v. Grigg Ltd. [1924] 1 K.B., at 659, per Alkin L.J. 35 Jonesv. Pacaya Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. [1911] 1 K.B. 445, at 457, per Buckley L.J. violation of that right by the defendant. 36 This attempt, he pointed out, was rejected by the Court of Appeal ......