Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Written Evidence


Memorandum by the Magistrates' Association, Judicial Policy & Practice Committee (RL 15)

  1.  The Magistrates' Association of England and Wales represents lay justices whose Licensing Committees have traditionally administered the alcohol licensing laws and whose courts have been responsible for the first stage appeals relating to Public Entertainment Licences issued by local councils.

  2.  Under the 2003 Licensing Act, local authorities became responsible for all alcohol and entertainment licences, along with licences for the sale of hot food after 2300 hours, which is also a part of the 2003 Act. However, the Magistrates' Courts remain as the appeal court for all those who disagree with decisions made by local council licensing committees.

  3.  Magistrates' courts also deal with those who commit offences under the Act and see, on a day to day basis, the consequences of over-indulgence in alcohol, whether it results in stranger on stranger violence, domestic abuse or drink driving.

  4.  In view of the narrow focus of this hearing, we would only want to comment on the issue of the handling of the appeals process that arises as a result of the re-licensing period after the First Appointed Day in February 2005. Magistrates' Courts also have an on-going role as the appeal court for those who wish to appeal decisions either on the review of licences or applications for variations or new licences filed after the 6 August 2005. However, these matters are not issues of re-licensing.

  5.  Our main concern regarding the handling of appeals during the re-licensing period that started in February 2005, was first expressed to officials at DCMS during a meeting of the Licensing Advisory Group in April 2005, and then as part of a joint letter from ourselves and the Justices' Clerks' Society, sent to James Purnell, the Minister at DCMS responsible for the implementation of the Act on 3 June (see copy attached).

  6.  This concern, related to the potential problem of those geographical areas where there might be large numbers of appeals that needed to be heard: Westminster is an obvious example. The bunching of applications by licence holders towards the second half of the six month period when existing licensees could both protect and apply to vary their existing licence terms, meant that some areas, where there are a large number of licensed premises, could face problems if there were a significant number of appeals against decisions on variations. If local authorities failed to deal with any requests for variations during transition, they were "deemed refused" and could also then be appealed.

  7.  Any appeals under the 2003 Act require the provision of courtroom space, a bench of three trained magistrates and a legal adviser, plus other ancillary staff. Such appeals will necessarily compete for limited court space with other regular court work and a fluctuating volume of criminal trial work that depends largely upon the level of not-guilty pleas.

  8.  As a consequence, were there to be a significant number of appeals under the 2003 Licensing Act in a particular area, these appeals might not be listed until well into 2006. Even before the government's decision to review the Guidance issued under the 2003 Licensing Act, this posed potential problems for licensees at the bottom of the queue, who might have to wait longer than their neighbours for a decision. Any revision to the Guidelines could further exacerbate this situation, with all original hearings likely on the original Guidelines and some appeals being covered by those Guidelines and others by any revised Guidelines. Of course, the Guidelines are only guidance and not prescription, but their purpose was to add a degree of certainty that would assist all involved in the licensing process.

  9.  Our suggested solution, based upon the fact that from 1 April 2005 magistrates have the capability to hear cases anywhere within the jurisdiction of their National Commission, and not just within their local area, was to identify potential licensing appeal "hot spots" and for the relevant authorities to seek means by which additional teams of magistrates and legal advisers might be asked to volunteer to move into these areas from elsewhere, in order to cover just this potential short-term transitional problem. As the DCMS are the lead Department on Licensing, the suggestion was made to them. However, it was also made to officials at the DCA at the meeting of their regular Licensing Transition Group that was established in the autumn of 2003.

  10.  To date, we are unaware of any practical steps having been taken at a national level to deal with the potential problem of "appeal bunching" or "overload" in a particular area. It may well be that the officials at DCMS, who are monitoring the progress of the 2003 Act, have discovered that no such "hot spots" for appeals are likely to arise. Individual Courts Boards may seek more local solutions through their discussions on listing issues at meetings of the Justices' Issues Groups. However, some national guidance to these groups on strategies for dealing with any potential problems might still have been useful.

  11.  The Magistrates of England and Wales are committed to offering the highest possible level of service to all users of their courts. We acknowledge that problems during the transitional period are a short-term phenomenon, but we would not want any delays in the hearing of appeals under the 2003 Licensing Act to be seen as a consequence of inaction on our part.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 17 March 2006