[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/30 - AG v Overend [1999] UR 30 (16 February 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/30.html Cite as: [1999] UR 30

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

ISLAND OF JERSEY

At the Assembly of Governor, Bailiff, and Jurats

In the year 1999, the 16 day of February

Before: Sir Philip Martin Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff of Jersey, assisted by Jurats

Charles Leonard Gruchy, Michael Arthur Rumfitt, Edward

James McGregor Potter, ISO, Philip John de Veulle, Roy

Malcolm Bullen, MBE, and John Lyndon Le Breton

In the matter of the reference by the Attorney General, by virtue of Article 9 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law, 1974, relating to the Restaurant and Entertainment Licences held by Overend Holdings (1982) Limited for the premises 13 James Street

( now known as Quids Inn), St Helier, Jersey.

HM Solicitor General

Advocate JA Clyde-Smith for the licensee company

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF: In 1987 the Assembly gave its ruling on a reference by the then Attorney General in relation to marketing or advertising practices which might constitute an inducement to consume alcohol to excess. The Assembly stated:

The brief history of this reference by the Attorney General is that in or about April 1998, the licensee - Overend Holdings ( 1982) Limited - changed the name of its premises in James Street from Halls to Quids Inn. The change of name coincided with a pricing change whereby all drinks sold on the ground and first floors were sold for £1.00 and those on the second floor were sold for £1.50. The pricing change represented a considerable reduction on the prices previously charged, and it also appears that it introduced a differential with prices listed by at least some of its principal competitors.

The result was, from the licensees viewpoint, a considerable success. The number of customers escalated dramatically and we have been told that the companys turnover has also significantly increased. Unfortunately the licensees success was not viewed so favourably by the police, who complained that the incidence of drunkenness and public disorder in the immediate vicinity of the licensees premises, had risen equally dramatically, it is said by 500% over the previous year.

A report was referred to the Attorney General who has made this reference to the Assembly concluding in his opinion:

We interpose that the practice of selling beer by means of the vending machine was short-lived. After 5 or 6 days, whether as the result of police intervention or because, as claimed by the licensee, it was not a commercial success, it was discontinued. We think that the decision to discontinue was correct. It cannot be consistent with a licensees obligations to sell intoxicating liquor by automatic vending machine.

Counsel for the licensee complained that the reference was premature and unfair in that no effective warnings were given of the dissatisfaction of the law enforcement authorities. We interpose that the criticism of the Solicitor General appeared to us to be unfounded. The duties of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, acting on his behalf, under the Licensing Law, are to refer any licence to the Assembly when - in his opinion - it is appropriate to do so, and there is no duty upon the Attorney General to consult with or otherwise to notify any licensee before taking that action.

Counsel, also criticised the authorities in relation to a meeting with the Constable of St Helier in October 1998, at which no inkling was given of any concern. Furthermore, Counsel said, there was a meeting on the 20 November 1998 at Police Headquarters attended by representatives of the licensee, who asserted that they were given no warning of the enquiries directed by the Attorney General, nor of any concern as to the pricing policy, nor as to the management of the premises. It is true that Inspector Adamson has asserted to the contrary that he did highlight the problems at Quids Inn, due to the number of intoxicated customers leaving the premises, although that is not unfortunately corroborated by the recollection of the only other police officer present, albeit that his statement was recorded many weeks after the event.

We accept Inspector Adamsons evidence but it is the case, nonetheless, that nothing was put in writing at any stage to the licensee recording the concerns of the police. We do not wish to imply that a licensee is entitled to a warning; the duty of a licensee is at all times to comply with the law and to conduct himself in a responsible and appropriate manner. Nonetheless, we think that in the context of ongoing dissatisfaction for one reason or another with particular licensed premises, it is desirable that the police draw the licensees attention in writing, to the dissatisfaction and to the causes of that dissatisfaction, and we hope that the discontinued system of written warnings will be reinstated.

Counsel also drew attention to the general co-operation of the licensees staff with the police and to the introduction of such measures as the Club Watch Scheme and the Doormens Registration Scheme. We accept that these are significant matters in mitigation.

Taking account of these matters and because we are not satisfied that the licensee was given the opportunity to address the concerns of the police and to put matters to rights, we do not consider that it would be appropriate to revoke the licences in this case. Having said that, the Assembly has been left in no doubt, from the affidavit evidence of the police officers, that there has been a significant increase in crime and public disorder in and around St James Street, which has coincided with the change in pricing policy.

We are equally satisfied that the licensee cannot have been in ignorance of this significant increase but chose to close its eyes to it.

We accept the submission of Mr Clyde-Smith that the change in pricing policy does not conflict with the views expressed by the Assembly in 1987. Nonetheless, the picture which has been painted of intoxicated persons disgorging into James Street at closing time, and of subsequent fighting, foul language, and violence towards the police is unattractive and unacceptable. We emphasise that it is not the pricing policy itself which is unacceptable; it is not the function of the Assembly to stifle competition. It is the consequences on the streets of this successful pricing policy with which we are here concerned.

We are not satisfied that the management of Quids Inn has been adequate. We were told that the registered manager - Mr Morin - spends most of his time at the door of the premises. This is not, in our view, the function of the manager. Mr Morin’s affidavit contained two passages which appeared to us to be significant; at paragraph 14 he stated: "It is a regrettable but inescapable fact that there will always be incidents of public disorder associated with licensed premises". At paragraph 17 he stated in relation to intoxication "Once in the premises it is physically impossible to monitor the level of alcohol consumption of each of our customers".

These statements appear to us, taken in the context of the affidavit, to amount to an acceptance that in a night club of this kind there will always be intoxication and associated public disorder. As an Assembly we are not prepared to tolerate such an approach; it is the duty of the licensee to take whatever steps may be appropriate to prevent the excessive consumption of alcohol on its premises which is likely to lead to consequential disorder.

We have noted that the instructions to barmen at the Quids Inn include an instruction that no alcohol is served to any customer who is - or appears to be - drunk, ie unable to stand upright, unsteady on feet, incoherent, or uncooperative. The Licensing Law requires however that alcohol should not be sold to any person who is under the influence of alcohol. The Legislature has accordingly drawn a distinction between those who are under the influence of alcohol and those who are drunk.

The duty on a licensee, in our opinion, is to identify the stage before a person becomes drunk, and thereupon to refuse to serve any further alcohol.

To assert the impossibility of preventing customers from becoming drunk is not good enough. We accept that compliance with this duty is not always easy. But it is for the licensee, to whom the privilege of holding a liquor licence has been accorded, to devise the means of compliance.

Our conclusions are these: we are satisfied that the marketing practice of selling drinks at £1.00 and advertising accordingly has resulted in the excessive consumption of alcohol by some customers, which in turn has led to an increase in public disorder in the area .

We wish to record that a seventh category licence is an entertainment licence and that drinking should be ancillary to the entertainment. Some of the advertisements placed before us do appear to contravene the views expressed by the Assembly in 1987, and we request the Attorney General in the aftermath of this decision to identify any licensed premises continuing to employ inappropriate inducements in their advertising, and to consider whether any action should be taken. We also invite the relevant States Committee to consider whether it might be appropriate to introduce a provision in the Licensing Law whereby it is a standard condition that no such inducement be employed. We reiterate that the duty of a licensee is to conduct his premises in such a manner that excessive drinking and consequential public disorder do not result.

In our opinion this licensee has failed in that duty and we accordingly suspend the third and seventh category licences of Overend Holdings (1982) Limited with immediate effect until the 31 March 1999. It only remains to add that we wish to encourage the Attorney General to refer the licences of any other similar establishments to the Assembly where there is evidence of excessive consumption of alcohol and consequential public disorder in and around the premises to the detriment of the public interest.

No Authorities