Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC112

royal court

(Samedi Division)

Extraordinary Licensing Assembly

13^th June 2007 

Before     :	Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt. Bailiff, and Jurats Le Brocq, Bullen, King, Morgan, Newcombe and Liddiard.

REPRESENTATION OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IN RESPECT OF EAGLE TAVERN IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSING (JERSEY) LAW, 1974.

Solicitor General on behalf of the Attorney General Representor.

Advocate A. D. Hoy for Eagle Tavern Ltd.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is a reference by the Attorney General under Article 9 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 in respect of the Eagle Tavern.  Eagle Tavern Limited, to which we shall refer as "the Licensee", a Randall's company, holds a first category licence for these premises.  The manageress of the premises at all material times was Bridget Lewis.  Miss Lewis was registered as manager on 14^th October, 2005, and held that post until a few days ago.  We understand that she resigned after an incident on 8^th June when a 17 year old youth was allegedly served with alcohol.  The Attorney General's reference does not, however, concern that incident.  This reference concerns two other incidents which took place on 13^th August and 8^th September, 2006, respectively.

2.        On 13^th August, 2006, at 10.50 pm Police Officers were called to the Eagle Tavern following a report that a male had been stabbed.  The Police found the victim near the premises with an injury to his wrist which was bleeding heavily.  Police Officers described him as heavily intoxicated, although capable of walking.  It is clear from the evidence that we heard this morning that he was, in fact, drunk.  The Officers took him to the General Hospital where they were told that the male had been arguing with another male person in the Eagle Tavern.  Before receiving the injury he had been on his way home in order to arm himself and return to the public house in order to "sort out" his assailant.  He was unwilling to name his assailant or to press charges.  The victim in question had been refused service at a nearby public house, at approximately 8 pm that evening, for causing a disturbance.  Miss Lewis, who was in the premises at the time of this incident although not on duty, said that he had seemed fine when he entered the public house shortly after 8 pm.  So far as Miss Lewis was concerned Police Officers reported that she was unsteady on her feet, slurring her words and had dilated pupils.  It is clear that she too was drunk.  She said that there had been a scuffle in the bar, but she had not witnessed the stabbing, and she did not believe that it was her duty to notify the Police of minor incidents.  The Police found that one other customer, at least, on the premises was drunk.  One man had slumped and was on the point of collapse, and fell against one of the Police Officers, before collapsing outside.  Many other customers in the premises were also grossly intoxicated.  The assistant manager, on the occasion in question, was Mr Scott Allardice.  Police Officers found that he was intoxicated, but not drunk.  He was the only barman on duty.  There is some dispute as to the precise number of customers who were in the bar at that time.  Miss Lewis told the Police that the brewery would not allow her to take on extra part-time staff, but she said that she would have been able to help Mr Allardice if necessary.  She conceded that Mr Allardice had not received any formal training on his duties under the Licensing Law.

3.        The second incident took place on 8^th September, 2006.  On that occasion Police Officers noticed that lights were still on, at the Eagle Tavern, at 11.45 pm.  On entering the premises they saw four people at the bar all with partially full glasses.  Miss Lewis was not in the bar at the time, although a barmaid was present.  When located by the Police Miss Lewis said that the male and female still at the bar with drinks were her boyfriend and lodger, respectively.  She admitted that she should have told them to go upstairs prior to last orders, but she had lost track of the time.

4.        Miss Lewis was interviewed by the Police on 21^st September.  She confirmed that it was the first year in which she had held a licence and that apart from working as a barmaid she had no experience of being a licensee.  She had been given no training and had gained no qualification, such as that offered by the British Institute of InnKeepers, although she had attended a cellar management course.  She was unsure which licences applied to the Eagle Tavern and she was confused as to whether she was the licensee or the manageress.  She admitted that her knowledge of the Licensing Law was not good and that she had last read it when applying to be the manager of the Eagle Tavern.

5.        The assembly has received an Affidavit from Mr Kevin Lewis who is the tenant of the Eagle Tavern and of the Bagot Inn at Georgetown.  He asserted that he had trained Miss Lewis for the post of manageress.  He stated that he had been through the parts of the Licensing Law applying to public houses.  He had taught her by allowing her to shadow him whilst working in the business.

6.        Our conclusion in relation to training is that Miss Lewis was not properly trained.  It appears that she was shown the relevant parts of the Law when she was registered, but nothing more was done to guide her as to the appropriate conduct for a manager of licensed premises.  Indeed, we think it is clear from the matters set out in the Attorney General's reference, that Miss Lewis is not competent to act as the manager of licensed premises.  Although not on duty, she was drunk at the time of the first incident and although notified by the Police of the stabbing, she did not appear to think that that was important enough to report to Mr Davies until the following day.  More importantly not only were, at least, two and probably three different customers drunk on the premises that evening, but many others within the premises were at a high level of intoxication.  The assistant manager, himself, was also intoxicated.  Miss Lewis' reaction to the Police was that she did not feel that anyone on the premises was excessively intoxicated.  This was probably because she was herself in her own words "one quarter cut".

7.        This is not an acceptable way for licensed premises to be conducted.  We gave some guidelines in the Attorney General's reference in relation to the Le Hocq Inn Limited and we think it is worth repeating what we then said:

"8.   We wish to take this opportunity of recording our view of the obligations of licensees in three respects.  First, it is essential that managers are fully aware of the provisions of the Licensing Law and able to instruct others working in licensed premises as to the essential provisions of the law.  Ideally managers will have received formal training and have obtained a qualification from the British Institute of InnKeepers or some equivalent certificate of competence.  The key to the fulfilment of a licensee's obligations is strong and effective management of licensed premises.  Secondly, it is essential that all persons working on licensed premises are aware of the principal provisions of the Licensing Law and are sufficiently mature and competent to enforce the law in any reasonably foreseeable circumstances.  Ideally such persons will have received a formal induction course or training involving some form of simple test to ensure they understand their obligations under the Liscensing Law.  Thirdly, it is important that all licensees and those working in licensed premises understand the distinction between being drunk and being under the influence of alcohol.  As we stated in the Attorney General's reference in relation to Overend Holdings (1982) Limited in 1999, the States have drawn a distinction between these two states of intoxication.  A person who is drunk is not permitted to remain on licensed premises.  Technically the legal position is that drunkenness is not permitted on licensed premises (see article 12 (1) (f); but that means that someone who is drunk must not remain there.  A person who is under the influence of alcohol may not be served with alcohol, but may, subject to the discretion of the manager or person in charge, remain on the licensed premises.  Where there is any doubt as to whether a person is drunk or under the influence of alcohol a prudent licensee should persuade the customer to leave.  We have no wish to be killjoys, but we think that experienced and competent managers and bar staff will be able to distinguish legitimate merriment and enjoyment from rowdiness and other telltale signs of incipient drunkenness.  We appreciate that enforcement of the law is not always easy, but it is by no means impossible.  It is for the licensee, to whom the privilege of holding a liquor license has been granted, to secure the means of compliance.  There is a duty to identify the two stages so that, in relation to any customer, a person under the influence of alcohol is no longer served with alcohol, and a person who is drunk is required to leave.

9.    We understand, of course, that people react differently to the consumption of alcohol.  As a general guideline however, it seems to us that a person who is unable to stand upright, is unsteady on their feet, incoherent, aggressive or uncooperative is likely to be drunk.  A person whose speech is mildly slurred or whose physical coordination is affected is likely to be under the influence of alcohol.  Experienced managers and bar staff will have no difficulty in identifying these different signs of intoxication."

The licensee in this case was fined in January, 2007, £350, as was Miss Lewis for the offence of permitting drunkenness on licensed premises in relation to the first incident, and £150 each for the offence of allowing members of the public to be on licensed premises after the permitted hours in relation to the second incident.  Both fines appear to us, with respect to the Magistrate, to be low, but in relation to the first incident to be far too low.  If drunkenness on licensed premises is to be stamped out the fines imposed must reflect an element of deterrence.  The maximum penalty under the Licensing Law is £2000 which is itself, in our view, too low and we hope that the legislature might give consideration to an increase in the maximum penalty. 

8.        Our conclusion is that the licensee has been guilty, apart from the infractions of the Licensing Law, of a serious failure to comply with the obligations of a responsible licence holder.  Notwithstanding all that had gone wrong in August and September, 2006, the licensee allowed Miss Lewis to continue as manageress and seems to have taken no substantive steps in terms of training or guidance to ensure that the way in which she was conducting the premises improved. 

9.        We have taken careful note of the Affidavit of Mr Kevin Davies, the effective beneficial owner of the licensee.  Mr Davies asserts that he is an experienced licensee, but it seems to us that he has still much to learn, in particular, in relation to the training which we expect those in charge of licensed premises to receive.  We hope that the passages from the Le Hocq Inn Judgment, to which we have referred, will be expressly drawn to the attention of all managers and manageresses and indeed all those exercising responsibility in public houses.

10.      Furthermore, there should be a suitable audit trail of such training and instruction, as recommended at paragraph 14 of the Assembly's Judgment in the Attorney General's reference relating to the Mont Félard Hotel.  We think that this is a far worse case than either the Mont Félard case or the Le Hocq Inn case.  In this case there was an almost total absence of effective management with the results which we have described.

11.      Our decision is that the licence of the licensee is revoked with immediate effect.  An application for a new licence in respect of these premises should not be made before the ordinary sitting of the Assembly in September 2007.  If an application is made in September we will want to be assured that the prospective licensee has put in place proper procedures for the training of staff and that the proposed manager is not only fully trained but a fit and proper person to manage these particular premises. 

12.      Finally, we encourage again the Licensing Unit to refer to the Attorney General any cases where there has been a serious failure of management.  The social problems arising from excessive drinking and drunkenness in public places will not be solved until there is effective management in all premises entrusted with a liquor licence.  That completes the Judgment of the Assembly.

Authorities

Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.

Le Hocq Inn Limited [2006] JRC 078.

Mont Félard Hotel Limited [2005] JRC 104.