Sharanjeet Lalli v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | John Howell,John Howell QC |
| Judgment Date | 09 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 14 (Admin) |
| Date | 09 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4652/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2015] EWHC 14 (Admin)
John Howell QC
Case No: CO/4652/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Jeremy Phillips (instructed by Dadds LLP) for the Claimant
Philip Kolvin QC and Asitha Ranatunga (instructed by the Director of Legal Services, Metropolitan Police) for the First Defendant
Gerald Gouriet QC and Paddy Whur ( instructed by Woods Whur) for the Second Defendant
Hearing dates: 16th December 2014
John Howell QC
This claim for judicial review is concerned with the circumstances in which a summary review by a licensing authority of a premises licence that authorises the sale of alcohol may be invoked and whether, and (if so) how, that authority must satisfy itself that they exist.
Under the Licensing Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act"), the chief officer of police for the area in which the premises are located can apply to the relevant licensing authority for a summary review of such a licence. The application must be supported by a certificate given by a senior member of that police force stating that in his opinion "the premises are associated with serious crime or serious disorder or both". The summary review has to be determined by the licensing authority within 28 days after the date on which it receives the application. That authority also has the power to impose "interim steps" pending the determination of that review, which include suspending the licence, modifying its conditions or excluding the sale of alcohol.
On behalf of the Claimant, Mr Jeremy Phillips contends that the mere occurrence of serious crime or serious disorder at the licensed premises is insufficient to justify a senior member of the police force giving the certificate that must support any application for a summary review. For the premises to have become "associated with serious crime or serious disorder", there must be a pattern of such behaviour there that would lead a reasonable person to associate the premises with serious crime or serious disorder or both. Mr Phillips submits that the basis for such an association may be found only in either (a) a series of such serious crimes or serious disorders or (b) a single incident that provides evidence of such a pattern. Mr Phillips further contends that, once an application for summary review has been made to the licensing authority, that authority has to review whether the premises are associated with serious disorder or serious crime and that it should not proceed with the summary review if it is not satisfied, or if it considers that the senior member of police who gave the certificate could not reasonably have been satisfied, that such an association exists. Such are the "draconian" consequences of a summary review that the precondition (which has to be satisfied before it may be invoked) should be strictly construed and the licensing authority must satisfy itself that it has been met.
In this case, so Mr Phillips submits, the opinion of the senior member of the relevant police force was based on a single incident at the licensed premises and the facts cannot be characterised on any basis as being of such a nature as to create in the mind of any reasonable person the association of the premises with serious crime required by the legislation. The certificate was accordingly invalid.
Moreover, so he submits, the licensing authority should not have proceeded with the summary review, and it should not have suspended the licence pending the determination of the review (as it did), given the available information about the alleged association. It could not reasonably have been satisfied that the premises were associated with serious crime or serious disorder, or that the senior member of the police force who gave the certificate could reasonably have been satisfied that they were, and it made no such finding.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Claimant, Mrs Sharanjeet Lalli, is the holder of a premises licence granted in April 2010 the relevant licensing authority, the Council of the London Borough of Newham ("the Council") that authorises the sale of alcohol by retail at the William the Conqueror Public House in Romford Road, Newham. She is also the designated premises supervisor under that licence. Guidance issued to licensing authorities by the Secretary of State under section 182 of the 2003 Act states that such a person is the key person usually responsible for the day-to-day management of the premises including the prevention of disorder.
On July 27 th 2014 a man was seriously injured at the pub. He suffered a large bleed on the brain. He remained in a coma for a not inconsiderable period (at least until August 13 th 2014).
The Claimant's husband, Mr Surjit Lalli, who was managing the pub at the time, has been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and a customer has been charged with causing grievous bodily harm. It appears that both have pleaded not guilty. It is necessary, therefore, to emphasise that what in fact those individuals may or may not have done is not a matter that falls to be determined on this claim for judicial review. What is significant in relation to this claim is what, on the basis of the information then available, the chief officer and senior member of the metropolitan police and the licensing authority respectively may have thought had occurred (not unreasonably) when reaching any decision under the 2003 Act.
During the previous four years in which the Claimant had held her licence, there had been no serious crime or disorder at the premises.
The police were only notified of the incident on July 28 th 2014, the day after it occurred, by a staff nurse at the hospital to which the injured man had been taken.
On July 29 th 2014, having viewed CCTV footage of the incident, a senior member of the metropolitan police, Superintendent Nash, gave a certificate under section 53A(1)(b) of the 2003 Act stating that in his opinion the premises were associated with serious crime.
On the same day the Chief Officer of Police for the Metropolitan Police Area applied under section 53A of that Act to the Council for a review of the Claimant's premises licence.
From the information then available to the police, it appeared that the man, who had been injured, had previously been barred from the pub but had been allowed to use it again. He had arrived there at about 6 pm; he had been drinking since then; and had taken a liking to a woman, who was with her brother and boyfriend. The man who was injured had started to cause a disturbance. At about 10.30pm he was asked by Mr Lalli to leave. It appeared that Mr Lalli had then got customers involved in ejecting the man. Mr Lalli could be seen on CCTV kicking the man when on the ground inside the pub in the buttocks and in the area of his head. Customers took the man out through a side entrance to the public house. One of the men who had been with the woman could then be seen throwing a punch that connected with the man's head knocking him over. A customer who came out of the pub afterwards saw the man lying on the ground and called an ambulance. It appeared to the police that no one working at the pub had looked after the victim. Not merely had they failed to call the ambulance, they had also failed to call the police or the licensing authority, thus hindering the investigation of the incident. The police considered that there had been a catastrophic failure in the management of the premises and that immediate suspension of the premises licence was necessary to prevent further such incidents at the pub.
Later that day, on July 29 th 2014, a sub-committee of the Council's licensing committee considered whether it was necessary to take interim steps pending the determination of the summary review. Having heard from PC Padda, who is the licensing officer for the borough for the Metropolitan Police, the sub-committee decided to suspend the Claimant's licence with immediate effect until the determination of the summary review. It thought that suspension was necessary for the purpose of the prevention of crime and disorder in view of the incident that had occurred at the premises. The letter communicating that decision to the Claimant stated that the sub-committee would hold a hearing into any representations about interim steps that it had imposed within 48 hours of receiving them.
Representations were made on the Claimant's behalf but, following a hearing on August 6 th 2014, the Sub-Committee decided to continue the suspension of the Claimant's premises licence. The sub-committee were concerned about the seriousness of the incident; the failure by the Claimant, who had been upstairs at the time, to investigate what had occurred downstairs and to contact the police; and her absence from the premises as an active manager when the police had previously visited them. The sub-committee had no confidence that she would run the premises responsibly if any further incidents occurred.
The sub-committee held further hearings on August 13 th 2014 and August 26 th 2014 to reconsider the interim steps it had imposed. Having heard further representations, they decided that it was appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives that the suspension of the Claimant's premises licence should remain in place. At the hearing on August 13 th 2014, the Sub-Committee found that, when the man had been knocked down...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Porky Pint Ltd v Stockton on Tees Borough Council
...3 The relevant key features of the statutory scheme were identified by John Howell QC in Lalli v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2015] EWHC 14 (Admin) at §§19–24. Under section 136 of the Licensing Act 2003 (the “2003 Act”) it is an offence to sell alcohol (or knowingly allow it to be so......
-
Superior Import / Export Ltd and Others v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs and Another
...since it was practicable to specify the documentation required: see R (Cabot Global Ltd) v Barkingside Magistrates' Court [2015] EWHC 14 (Admin) (at [51]); d) the list of individuals and companies on the attached schedules is said to be " extraordinarily wide", containing 237 names. 73 As s......