Spence v South Yorkshire Police
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE JUDGE |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 1996 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1996] EWHC J0305-2 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4210/95 |
| Date | 05 March 1996 |
[1996] EWHC J0305-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Before: Mr Justice Judge
CO/4210/95
MR METZER (instructed by the Law Partnership, Sheffield, S1) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Tuesday, 5th March 1996
This is an application to remit a Case Stated for amendment. The hearing in question took place on 18th September 1995. The questions for the Court were produced on 1st December 1995.
There are two; first, whether on the evidence the Justices were entitled to revoke the special hours certificate; second, whether on the evidence the Justices were entitled to find, as a fact, that on the whole persons were resorting to the premises at times when the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor there was lawful by virtue only of the certificate for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor, rather than for the purpose of dancing or of obtaining refreshments other than intoxicating liquor.
The application is based on the assertion that the Case Stated does not set out the issues raised on behalf of the appellants before the licensing Justices. That assertion does not stand with paragraph 6 of the Case Stated, which records under 4 separate contentions raised on behalf of the appellants.
The Case Stated also deals with two contentions argued by the respondent. Mr Metzer, in support of this application, argues that there are other matters which should have been recorded which were ventilated and which, if nothing is said or done about, will not be permitted to be raised at the substantive hearing on Thursday.
The answer to that is that the notes of the arguments, taken by the clerk, are available. I can see no possible basis on which anyone could take a point against the appellant who wished to argue a particular aspect of the case on the basis that it was not ventilated before the licensing Justices if there is a note of it, albeit in abbreviated form, made by their clerk.
As to any material argument omitted from the note, there can either be agreement that, in fact, there was an argument and that the note accidentally or by oversight omitted it, or there will be a dispute whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial