Joint Committee On Human Rights Minutes of Evidence

Examples of case law offering an aid to the interpretation of the term "permitting drunkenness" in section 172 of the Licensing Act 1964

  In Edmunds v James [1892] 1 QB 18, it was held that to supply drink to a person who is already drunk is to permit drunkenness.

  In Hope v Warburton [1892] 1 QB 134, it was held that a person may be liable for permitting drunkeness even though he has supplied no drink.

  Townsend v Arnold [1911] 75 JP 423 is authority for the proposition that "to permit" implies power to prevent, and Somerset v Wade [1894] 1 QB 574 is authority for the proposition that "permitting" presupposes knowledge.

  In Davies v Lees [1914] BTRLR 278 it was held that a licensee must be allowed discretion as to the time at which, and the means by which, he should take steps to eject a drunken person.

  In Warden v Tye [1877] 2 CPD 74 it was held that a licensee who is himself drunk on his own premises cannot be convicted of "permitting drunkenness".

previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 13 March 2001