The Licensing Act 2003: post-legislative scrutiny Contents

Chapter 4: Appeals

The appellate system for licensing cases

157.Under the Licensing Act 1964,150 and indeed under earlier legislation, a decision of licensing justices on the grant, refusal, renewal or revocation of a licence, or any other decision of the justices, was appealable to quarter sessions. On the creation of the Crown Court in 1972 the appeals were transferred to the Crown Court. The planned reform of licensing in 2000 retained this right of appeal. Chapter 12, headed “Fair Procedures and Appeals”, was precisely half a page long. The critical passage reads:

“The appeal process should provide an opportunity for mistakes in law to be put right, rather than for the body dealing with the appeal to review the case from scratch and substitute its own judgment for that of the licensing authority on the merits. For this reason we think that appeals should lie to the Crown Court sitting as an appeal court, comprising a judge sitting with two magistrates. This will ensure that licensing authorities are subject to effective and consistent legal supervision and also retain a continuing important role for the lay magistracy in licensing matters which reflects their knowledge of the area.”151

158.By the time the Licensing Bill was introduced, this policy had changed. Section 180 of, and Schedule 5 to, the Licensing Act 2003 provide that appeals against decisions of licensing authorities are to lie to magistrates’ courts and to be conducted by way of a hearing. In other words, the magistrate who previously had acted as the licensing justice became overnight the magistrate hearing appeals from the licensing authority which succeeded him. This remarkable change has certainly retained the local knowledge of the appellate tribunal. We consider in this chapter whether it has retained the other qualities which an appellate tribunal should display.

Numbers of appeals

159.When the officials of Government departments gave evidence to us in July 2016, the figures for the year to 31 March 2016 were not yet available. Figures are not collected every year, and none were collected in the year to 31 March 2015. The figures quoted in oral evidence by Andy Johnson, the Head of Alcohol at the Home Office, were those for the year to 31 March 2014. He told us that in that year, out of more than 21,000 applications covering not just fresh applications but also applications for minor or major variations of licences, there were just 111 appeals. This equates to 0.5%. There were 117 appeals against review decisions out of about 830 reviews, about 14%.152 The total of 228 appeals equates to 1% of decisions going to appeal.

160.Now that the Government statistics are available for the year to 31 March 2016 it can be seen that the number of appeals has declined:153

161.A further challenge to a decision of a magistrates’ court lies to the High Court by way of judicial review, but these are very infrequent; there were no completed judicial reviews of such decisions in the year to 31 March 2016.

162.Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot told us that:

“initially [after the commencement of the Act] there was an upsurge in appeals, but that appears to have settled and we are getting many, many fewer, probably in the last five years. We did a bit of research before coming here today. For example, Westminster, which is a pretty busy area for licensed premises, is running about one effective appeal a year. We checked in one or two other areas. I think Cornwall has one a year, and in Norwich there are one or two a year.”155

Reasons for the low number of appeals

163.A number of reasons have been offered for the very small number of appeals. One, put forward by Councillor Peter Richards, was that this demonstrates the quality of the initial decisions: “I think we make very good decisions. I think that is evidenced by the fact that very rarely do we have any appeals.”156 The Home Office told us in their written evidence that “some licensing authorities suggested that having to take into consideration the possible financial consequences of their decision making has meant their decisions were considered and well-reasoned in order to be more robust in court.”157

164.We find this entirely unpersuasive. Every decision has a winner and a loser, and we cannot believe that 99% of parties to hearings are so impressed by the quality of the licensing committee’s decision that, though unsuccessful, they decide not to appeal. We agree with Jon Foster from the Institute of Alcohol Studies:

“I agree that the level of appeals is not a reliable indicator that the Act is working well and decisions are always made correctly, because it does not show those decisions which perhaps should have been taken to appeal, but were not because they were favourable to the licensed trade. Local authorities not having the financial ability or political will to pursue difficult cases and go to appeal, or to make strong decisions which could potentially be appealed, is a big factor. The influence of the trade was a big factor according to the people I spoke to. So having a low number does not tell you much.”158

165.The Home Office did not agree with Mr Foster that the cost to local authorities of defending the decisions of their licensing committees was likely to be a major factor. In their written evidence they wrote that they had held discussions with representatives of the licensed trade, licensing solicitors and local government to look at “whether licensing authorities had been penalized for their decisions by magistrates’ courts awarding costs against them, and whether this had an impact on decision-making. In certain cases, costs have been awarded against licensing authorities, but it was generally found that this did not deter licensing authorities from reviewing premises licences where evidence suggested that the licensing objectives were being undermined.”159

166.This may be true of appeals against review decisions, which as we have said run at 14%, but it does nothing to explain the much smaller rate of appeals against application decisions.

Compromising appeals

167.We believe the major reason for the low number of appeals is that many matters which might go to appeal, and which one of the parties would certainly wish to take further, are settled before an appeal is heard or even lodged. District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe said: “Many more appeals start than actually finish with a court hearing.”160

168.Normally the settlement of disputes without a further round of litigation is to be welcomed, but only if all the parties feel that the resulting compromise takes their interests fully into account. Andy Johnson was satisfied that this was what happened:

“… part of the reason why the number [of appeals] is so low is that there is a lot of discussion between applicants and local authorities through informal mediation during the course of the licensing process, where, as with any mediation, there will be a bit of give and take, so conditions may be added to the licence after the application has been submitted to address a particular concern of a local authority. We think that informal system before a decision is taken by a licensing committee is one that works effectively.”161

169.A phenomenon that the evidence highlighted was that, on occasion, the decision of the sub-committee was so clearly flawed that the solicitors for the licensing authority were highly motivated to reach a compromise with the appellant in advance of any appeal hearing, in order to minimise a real risk of costs. The evidence from Mr Gerald Gouriet which we have already quoted162 typifies this: “I had a refusal after which a committee member came up to me and said, ‘Do not worry. You will get it on appeal, but we could not go against the residents’.”163

170.John Gaunt gave us an example of the effective settlement of appeals before a hearing: “We have had two [appeals] in the last two years, and in both cases we appealed against a restriction imposed on a new licence application. It never got as far as the magistrates, because we engaged with the council—the licensing authority—by way of informal mediation. In the nicest possible way, it conceded the point we were appealing, we got what we wanted and the appeal was withdrawn.”164

171.Mr Gaunt may have got what he wanted, but the same may not be true of all those taking part in the proceedings. Wirrall Council put the opposite side of the picture:

“When such mediation takes place this is confusing for local residents who have attended a hearing and then expect the decision to be implemented. When advised that the decision is subject of an appeal the expectation is that the courts will make the decision. Changes / compromises can be difficult for local residents to engage in and ultimately accept when a formal appeal hearing has not taken place.”165

172.We believe this is a valid point. The Federation of Bath Residents’ Associations thought that “the process might well be improved if those making representations were also privy to any mediation, and so offered their advice on preventing problems with the community.”166

173.Licensing authorities should publicise the reasons which have led them to settle an appeal, and should hesitate to compromise if they are effectively reversing an earlier decision which residents and others intervening may have thought they could rely on.

The lack of precedent

174.We have explained in Chapter 2 how a constant criticism of decisions of licensing committees is the variation and inconsistency. The decisions of magistrates’ courts should help to provide consistency, and the main reason they do not is that they are often inaccessible, and when available, are often themselves inconsistent.

175.This arises from the status and practice of magistrates’ courts. They are not courts of record, so that their decisions are not precedents binding on magistrates deciding identical or similar issues in future. They can of course offer guidance for subsequent decisions, and be of persuasive value. That however depends on their decisions being recorded and accessible. Often they are not. This applies in particular to the decisions of lay magistrates. District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe explained: “Perhaps the fundamental point is that they do not have to be written out and handed down. Certainly, when I have done them I have found it easier to do that, which means that I too have a record if I am judicially reviewed. That is always helpful. Generally speaking, longer cases especially are written down … ”167

176.Even if judgments are written down, are known about, are available and are disseminated, their value is very limited, as was clear from the evidence of Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot:

“We have regard to [earlier judgments]; we read them. The example in point is Judge Roscoe’s judgment that I referred to earlier, when she decided quite differently from an earlier judge who had looked at the same point. She was not bound by that earlier judgment, but the parties in front of her, as I understand from her judgment, referred her to it. She said in terms, ‘I do not agree with that earlier judgment’. You have regard to it; you read it, and you may decide completely differently that that judge got it wrong, and that was what she did.”168

177.The case to which Senior District Judge Arbuthnot referred deals with the applicability of interim measures, an important matter since an interim order suspending a licence can have a serious, possibly fatal, effect on the business of the licence holder. Box 3 shows the problem raised by the case.

Box 3: The lack of precedent

In a case in 2011169 the police issued a closure notice on premises. The police applied for a summary review of a premises licence. This came before the licensing authority within 48 hours, and they took the interim step of suspending the licence. The licence holder was not heard. He challenged this at a subsequent interim steps hearing. The issue was whether the interim steps, which included suspension of the licence, lapsed at this stage or continued until the appeal was heard by the magistrates (in this case over 6 months later). In that case District Judge Knight held that the interim steps lapsed so that the sale of alcohol could continue pending the appeal. She said that the drafting of the statute “defies understanding by any human being”. But in an almost identical case in 2014 District Judge Roscoe, although aware of the earlier decision, was not bound by it. She said: “The decision in Oates is … not binding upon me and, I think, is wrong.” She came to the opposite conclusion: that the interim steps continued in force, so that the continued sale of alcohol was unauthorised pending the appeal.170

178.The only way, short of legislation, that this issue could have been resolved was by a decision of the High Court on judicial review. In 2013 and 2014 the same point arose in two different cases. In both an application was made to the High Court for judicial review; in both the judge refused permission. In the first of these the judge, Dingemans J, said in refusing permission that he thought that interim measures could take effect beyond the review determination.171 In the second, Collins J suggested the opposite,172 but since he too was refusing permission, the dicta of both judges were obiter and so not binding in any future magistrates’ court appeal.

179.Collins J said that “the legislation is badly drafted and by no means clear”. We regret that he did not take that opportunity to clarify it, a regret shared by the Home Office in their Impact Assessment for a provision in the Policing and Crime Bill.173 The Policing and Crime Act 2017 has now inserted into the Licensing Act a lengthy new section 53D which attempts to resolve the issue, and which will enter into force on 6 April 2017.174 The fact remains that for two and a half years an important issue has been subject to two conflicting judicial decisions, neither of which was binding in any future case which raised the point.

The quality of appeal hearings

180.To us, the most remarkable of all the figures we have quoted is that as many as 257 of the 350 local authorities reported no appeals at all in the course of the year. It is legitimate to infer from this that there must be a number of local authorities—perhaps a substantial number—against whose decisions there are no appeals in two, maybe three or more years. It is therefore hardly surprising that many magistrates’ courts have little or no expertise in an area which they come across so infrequently. Nor is training the answer because, as Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot said, “The problem with training is that we do it so rarely that I am not sure it would be worth doing it for the few cases we have.”175

181.The London Borough of Hounslow drew a distinction between lay magistrates and professional district judges:

“We also believe that appeals are too complicated for lay magistrates. Whilst many appeals are allocated to a district judge, we have on occasion had magistrates sitting on appeals. The clerk is also not a specialist in licensing law and we have found that the system is unfair to all concerned because the knowledge of the law is not present and some of the arguments are very technical and legally advanced. Magistrates are not trained in licensing and it is unreasonable to expect them to grasp the often significant volumes of evidence, law and case law.”176

Comparable appellate structures

182.Under the Gambling Act 2005, operating and personal licences are issued by the Gambling Commission, and appeals from the Commission’s decisions go to the First-Tier tribunal, and thence on a point of law to the Upper Tribunal. But premises licences are also needed and these, like premises licences for the sale of alcohol, are issued by the local authority, following a procedure very similar to that for alcohol premises licences; and, as in the case of those licences, an appeal lies to the magistrates’ court.

183.Another not dissimilar system of appeals is that for taxi licences. They are granted, refused, suspended or revoked by local authorities (except in London where the duty falls to Transport for London). However due to a historical anomaly, taxi vehicle owners in England and Wales outside London have a right of appeal directly to the Crown Court, whereas private hire vehicles can only appeal to the magistrates’ court in the first instance. In London the first stage is an application to the licensing authority to reconsider its decision, followed by an appeal to the magistrates’ court.

184.The whole law relating to taxis, including the licensing system and appeals from decisions, was considered in great detail by the Law Commission.177 They consulted widely, and their recommendations were that there should be (i) a right to require the licensing authority to reconsider its original decision (though this stage could be bypassed); (ii) a right of appeal to the magistrates’ court; and then (iii) a right of further appeal to the Crown Court. These recommendations have yet to be implemented.

185.We mention these only to show that if, as we think essential, the appellate system for alcohol licences needs reform, there are a number of choices. Yet other possibilities would be a right of appeal directly to the Crown Court (which, as we have explained, is what was originally envisaged),178 or to the County Court. It is anomalous that appeals in civil matters like licensing should lie to the Crown Court, with its primarily criminal jurisdiction, rather than to the County Court with its civil jurisdiction. We canvassed briefly with some of our witnesses the option of an appeal to the County Court, but none showed any particular enthusiasm for it.179

The appellate system for planning cases

186.If, as we have concluded in the previous chapter, there is a strong case for transferring the functions of local authority licensing committees to planning committees, it follows that there is an equally strong case for considering whether, once planning committees deal with alcohol licences, licensing appeals should not follow the same route as appeals in planning cases.

187.The decisions of planning authorities are appealable to planning inspectors. They are not a court—nominally they act on behalf of the Secretary of State—but, unlike magistrates, they are trained and experienced in that topic. The Planning Inspectorate employs some 300 planning inspectors who have a wide range of backgrounds and expertise. Appeals with a technical element, such as waste, heritage asset, renewable resources, and so forth will often be allocated to an inspector with a specialist background in that area.

188.Appeals may be brought before an inspector by one of three routes: written representations, less formal hearings, or full inquiries. Parties may make representations at the time of the submission of the appeal as to which procedure they believe is more appropriate, but it is the inspectorate that makes the final decision as to the route which will be adopted.

189.Planning appeal decisions are not handed down immediately at the end of the appeal. The inspector considers everything they have read and heard, and writes up a formal Decision Letter, which is then handed down to all parties. The time within which this is done will depend on the formality of the inquiry, and can range from 4 weeks in the case of written representations to 9 weeks in the case of a hearing, and longer for a full inquiry.180

190.Those who attend hearings or inquiries can indicate that they would like to receive a copy of the decision by email. Decisions are also posted online and publicly available for all to access. They are precedents—there is case law saying that consistency is important, and that a previous inspector’s decision on the same point is a “material consideration” to which an inspector in a subsequent case must give appropriate weight. Inspectors must consider a previous decision drawn to their attention and must give reasons if they intend to depart from it. While the previous decision is not binding, a capricious departure from a previous decision is appealable.

191.There are further statutory appeals to the High Court provided for in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (based on identified errors in the Inspector’s approach, not just a re-hearing on the merits); these would not be relevant in licensing cases. Judicial review also lies against the decisions of Inspectors based on public law grounds.

Transferring licensing appeals to planning inspectors

192.In the early stages of our inquiry we sought views on changes to the appellate system, though not specifically canvassing the possibility of transferring licensing appeals to the planning inspectorate. For the Home Office, Andy Johnson said:

“We have recently discussed the appeal system in licensing with our stakeholders—licensing solicitors, local government and the trade—and they are happy with the way the system works at the moment. They did not feel that there was a need for additional appellate authorities or different rights of appeal to different courts. They liked the system as it works at the moment, because it helps them to resolve problems at that local level without recourse to the courts.”181

He added: “No one has suggested that there needs to be either another appellate authority or the creation of some form of formal mediation process to resolve disputes.”182

193.In our last evidence session we specifically put to ministers the possibility of a transfer to the planning inspectorate, and Sarah Newton MP replied: “You raise an important point about who is most appropriate to hear the appeals. The planning inspectorate is a well regarded system that works pretty well. I have not seen a huge amount of evidence to suggest that the magistrates’ system is not an equally effective route for considering those particular cases.”183

194.We asked a number of other witnesses for their views. Sheena Jowett JP, the Deputy Chairman of the Magistrates’ Association, replied: “I firmly believe that [licensing appeals] ought to stay in magistrates’ courts. We are local; we know the local situation, and we can weigh the evidence put before us.”184 If the evidence magistrates hear matches their local knowledge, that may be helpful; if not, they cannot substitute their own knowledge for the evidence. Planning inspectors are not necessarily based locally, but will always do a site inspection to familiarise themselves with the location, which will sometimes give them rather closer local knowledge than the magistrates.

195.We do not know which of “licensing solicitors, local government and the trade” were consulted by the Home Office, but certainly the majority of those from whom we took evidence were not “happy with the way the system works at the moment”, as is clear from the evidence we have cited earlier. A number of them compared the licensing appellate system unfavourably with the planning inspectorate. Joshua Simons & Associates Ltd wrote: “The appeal procedure should be organised through a new government agency that deals solely with licensing appeals similar to the Planning Inspectorate.”185

196.Gerald Gouriet QC drew this contrast between licensing and planning appeals:

“The inescapably haphazard quality of licensing committees demands an effective appeals process capable of correcting bad decision-making. Appeals ‘on the merits’ to a tribunal no higher than a magistrates’ court, of cases, the commercial and other implications of which (investment and jobs) may be of the greatest importance, often fall short of this requirement. Planning decisions, by way of contrast, go before an experienced planning inspector; whereas licensing appeals may be heard by a lay bench, or by a district judge, inexperienced in licensing and impatient to clear his/her criminal list.”186

197.Mr Gouriet added: “Moreover, and importantly, the appellate limitations brought about by the Hope & Glory case187 can render the appeals process illusory.” The appellate limitations to which he refers are the decision of Burton J in the Administrative Court, with which the Court of Appeal agreed, in which he held that the task of the magistrates is not to hear the case afresh and reach their own conclusions, but simply to decide whether the licensing authority was wrong in reaching the decision it did; and that it is for the appellant to persuade the magistrates of this. 188

198.Professor Light made this suggestion:

“The solution may be something like the planning appeal system. As you may know, in that system there are three ways the appeal can be heard … At the moment, [in licensing] there is nothing but a full-blown hearing. I did an appeal a couple of weeks ago to decide whether or not Subway could heat up a sandwich at 11 o’clock. We spent two days in the magistrates’ court, with tens of thousands of pounds of costs … which is ridiculous … With planning, you can do it on the papers, which is cheap; you can do it in a round table, which is not so cheap; or you can have a full tribunal like an inquiry, which is perhaps like the courts. I do not know whether it would work, but it may be something to think about.”189

199.Karl Suschitzky, who as an environmental health officer had experience of dealing with both appeal systems, thought that “the idea of having a similar system to the one in planning, with planning inspectors, people dealing with appeals, or even committees themselves, having much more experience of dealing with licensing matters can only be a good thing.”190 Leenamari Aantaa-Collier said: “A holistic approach would be much better, such that inspectors would look at both regimes.”191

An additional burden?

200.When looking at the possibility of integrating licensing committees with planning committees, we looked to see whether this would impose an additional burden on local authorities. A transfer of the appellate function would have different consequences, since magistrates’ courts are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), while planning inspectors are employed by the Planning Inspectorate which is an executive agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

201.Such a change would therefore reduce, though hardly significantly, the burden on magistrates’ courts, and correspondingly increase the work of the Planning Inspectorate. In the year to 31 March 2016 there were 11,783 planning appeals,192 89% of which were dealt with by written representations, 7% by hearings and 4% by full inquiries.193 This compares with 72 completed appeals against a licensing application decision and 121 against a licence review decision in that year, a total of 193,194 or under 2% of the number of planning appeals.

202.A further advantage of a transfer would be that in appropriate cases an inspector could dispose of a licensing appeal by the written procedure, thereby meeting the concern of Professor Light.195 We accept that the proportion of licensing appeals going to a hearing might be greater than the 11% of planning appeals going to a hearing or an inquiry, but even if none of the 193 licensing appeals that year had used the written procedure, that would still have increased the combined number of hearings (871) and inquiries (446) by only 15%.

203.The average salary of a district judge is almost double that of a planning inspector, but some appeals are currently decided by lay justices who are not salaried. We see no reason why the cost to the Planning Inspectorate, and hence DCLG, of transferring licensing appeals to them should exceed the saving to MoJ.

Our conclusion

204.We agree with Leenamari Aantaa-Collier when she said: “An inspector would be perfectly capable of looking at licensing as well as they look at conservation, highways or environmental issues. They are used to looking at different things, gathering together the information and making a decision. There is no reason why an inspector could not do the same with licensing.”196 Not all inspectors are trained in all these specialist fields. Some would need to be specifically trained to deal with licensing appeals. With that training, we anticipate that they would handle appeals as capably as district judges now do, and better than those lay magistrates who hear such appeals so infrequently that their lack of knowledge and experience of this branch of the law is a real impediment to justice.

205.We concluded in the previous chapter that there were strong arguments for transferring the functions of local authority licensing committees to planning committees, and we recommended that this should be trialled as soon as possible. We have considered whether our recommendation on the transfer of the appellate function should be delayed until the outcome of those trials is known. We do not see any reason for such a delay. A transfer of the appellate function is in our view needed as soon as possible. Whatever the outcome of the trials, it is immaterial whether the decision being appealed was made by a licensing committee or a planning committee. Either way, it seems to us that the benefits of appeals going to planning inspectors are clear.

206.We recommend that appeals from licensing authorities should no longer go to magistrates’ courts, but should lie to the planning inspectorate, following the same course as appeals from planning committees. This change is not dependent on the outcome of our recommendations on the licensing function, and should be made as soon as possible.

150 Licensing Act 1964, section 21(1)

151 Home Office, Time for Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of Our Licensing Laws, Cm 4696, April 2000, chapter 12

152 Q 9 (Andy Johnson, Head of Alcohol, Home Office). In subsequent supplementary evidence Mr Johnson (LIC0164) clarified that an appeal, once lodged, features in the statistics even though compromised before the hearing.

153 Home Office, ‘Alcohol and late night refreshment licensing England and Wales’ (31 March 2016), section 7: [accessed 10 March 2017]

154 There are 350 local authorities, but 16 of them did not reply to the Home Office request for figures.

155 Q 124 (Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, Chief Magistrate)

156 Q 27 (Councillor Peter Richards, Chairman of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee, Stratford-on-Avon District Council)

157 Written evidence from Home Office (LIC0155)

158 Q 49 (Jon Foster, Institute of Alcohol Studies)

159 Written evidence from Home Office (LIC0155)

160 Q 127 (District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe, Westminster Magistrates’ Court)

161 Q 9 (Andy Johnson, Head of Alcohol, Home Office)

162 Paragraph 103

163 Q 145 (Gerald Gouriet QC)

164 Q 121 (John Gaunt, Partner, John Gaunt and Partners)

165 Written evidence from Wirral Council (LIC0053)

166 Written evidence from Federation of Bath Residents’ Associations (LIC0031)

167 Q 129 (District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe, Westminster Magistrates’ Court)

168 Q 130 (Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, Chief Magistrate)

169 Chief Constable of Cheshire v Gary Oates, Halton Magistrates’ Court, 19 December 2011

170 The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police v Mayfair Realty Ltd (The Lord Mayor and the Citizens of the City of Westminster, Interested Party), Westminster Magistrates’ Court, 22 July 2014. In our consideration of police closure powers, we refer to District Judge Roscoe’s oral evidence on the effect of this case (paragraph 428).

171 R (on the application of 93 Feet East Ltd) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2013] EWHC 2716 (Dingemans J), 16 July 2013 [accessed 10 March 2017]

172 R (on the application of Sarai) v London Borough of Hillingdon (Collins J), 27 August 2014 : [accessed 10 March 2017]

In the latter case at an earlier hearing a different judge (Mostyn J) had granted an order lifting the interim steps because of the claimants’ potential to “suffer irredeemable and severe economic damage”.

173 Home Office, ‘Impact Assessment: Policing and Crime Bill: Summary Reviews and arrangements’, paragraph 16: [accessed 10 March 2017]

174 Section 137 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 will enter into force on 6 April 2017: see Regulation 3 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Commencement No. 1 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/399)

175 Q 124 (Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, Chief Magistrate)

176 Written evidence from London Borough of Hounslow (LIC0025)

177 Law Commission report on Taxi and Private Hire Services, Law Com No 347, Cm 8864, May 2014: [accessed 10 March 2017]

178 See paragraph 157

179 For example, Q 126 (Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, Chief Magistrate)

180 Planning Inspectorate, ‘Appeals: how long they take’ (16 January 2017): [accessed 10 March 2017]

181 Q 9 (Andy Johnson, Head of Alcohol, Home Office)

182 Ibid.

183 Q 212 (Sarah Newton MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Vulnerability, Safeguarding and Countering Extremism, Home Office)

184 Q 128 (Sheena Jowett JP, Deputy Chairman, Magistrates’ Association)

185 Written evidence from Joshua Simons & Associates Ltd (LIC0133)

186 Written evidence from Gerald Gouriet QC (LIC0056)

187 R (on the application of Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 [accessed 10 March 2017] High Court (Burton J). Another ground for his decision was that magistrates reaching their own conclusions on the facts without hearing the evidence would be contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Court of Appeal: [accessed 10 March 2017]

188 Written evidence from Gerald Gouriet QC (LIC0056)

189 121 (Prof Roy Light, Barrister, St John’s Chambers)

190 Q 181 (Karl Suschitzky, Environmental Health Officer, Derby City Council)

191 Ibid.

192 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 78

193 Planning Inspectorate, ‘Planning Inspectorate Statistics’ (1 November 2016), Table 2.1: [accessed 10 March 2017]

194 See paragraph 160

195 See paragraph 198

196 181 (Leenamari Aantaa-Collier)

© Parliamentary copyright 2017