« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The Nicholson Committee: Review of Liquor Licensing Law in Scotland
CHAPTER 7
SUPERVISION AND COMPLIANCE
A need for supervision and monitoring
7.1 The general licensing system which we are recommending will give licensing boards a much more pro-active role than they have ever had in the past. They will have to consider the merits of all applications for premises licences irrespective of whether or not there are any formal objections to such applications, and they will require to consider with care the special terms and conditions which are to be attached to such a licence. In our view such a system will help to ensure that, in the public interest, there is greater scrutiny than was previously the case before a licence is granted, and it should also ensure that the terms and conditions attached to a premises licence set out with clarity, and in some detail, what a licensee may, and may not, do in order to comply with the licence which has been granted to him.
7.2 However, that alone will not, in our view, bring about a compliant licensing system in which all licensees will do exactly what is required and expected in terms of the licences granted to them. No doubt the great majority of licensees will be at pains to ensure that they comply fully with the terms and conditions of their licences, but a few may not. Moreover, as we have previously noted, 1 some of the grounds for refusing an application for a premises licence may require something of a guess as to what may be likely in the future if the application were to be granted; but the present system provides little means for reconsideration if that guess turns out to have been wide of the mark. We are of the view that it is in the public interest that there should be a means, and a procedure, whereby the operation of a new licensing system can be regularly monitored, with licensing boards having power to take appropriate action in cases where licensing terms and conditions are not being properly observed. It will also, of course, be necessary to have a means of ensuring that personal licence holders, and in particular those designated as being in charge of operations in particular premises, are carrying out their duties in a responsible and acceptable manner. We now consider how all of that might be achieved.
The means of achieving supervision and monitoring
7.3 We consider that, if the operation of the licensing system is to be adequately supervised by licensing boards, it will be desirable that there should be an appropriate number of officers, answerable to their local licensing board, who can actually carry out that task. There is some comparable provision to that effect under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, 2 and we note that the current Licensing Bill for England and Wales makes reference to an "authorised person", a term which includes "an officer of a licensing authority ... who is authorised by that authority for the purposes of this Act". Our understanding is that it is intended that such officers will carry out a supervisory and advisory function on behalf of licensing authorities. We have also been made aware of a system of that kind which operates in the Province of British Columbia in Canada. 3 Under that system the licensing authority employs an appropriate number of "enforcement officers" who have powers of entry to licensed premises, and who can report infringements of licensing conditions to the licensing authority who may then impose a variety of sanctions on those who have transgressed. Despite their name, however, enforcement officers in British Columbia do not spend all their time seeking out wrongdoers. As we understand it, a considerable amount of their time is spent in building up good relations with licensees to whom they will offer advice as to how the requirements of licensing law and of terms and conditions attaching to a licence can best be complied with. Moreover, under the system in British Columbia, not every transgression will automatically be reported to the licensing authority: instead, the enforcement officers will usually work with the licensee in question in order to bring about a more compliant operation in the premises in question. The enforcement officers also work in close co-operation with the police both in uncovering instances of non-compliance but also in trying to bring about improvements by informal means. However, we understand that enforcement officers in British Columbia are not regarded as substitutes for the police. The police still have their customary role in relation to behaviour which constitutes a criminal offence in terms of licensing law. However, they cannot be expected to supervise what may be an infringement of a term or condition of a licence but which does not constitute an offence. That is why additional officers, answerable to the licensing authority, are also deemed to be necessary.
7.4 We are of the view that officers, carrying out a similar function to enforcement officers in British Columbia, would be of considerable benefit to the licensing system which we are proposing for Scotland. We think, however, that the term 'enforcement officer' gives a less than comprehensive, and possibly misleading, indication of the kinds of functions which we envisage; and we therefore suggest that an alternative name might be 'Liquor Licensing Standards Officer'. We consider that such persons should be employed by, and should be directly answerable to, licensing boards. Having raised the possibility of introducing such officers with a number of our consultees, including licensing boards, we tend to the view that, although a certain amount will depend on the geographical spread of particular licensing areas, it is likely that each licensing board in Scotland would probably require to employ three or four such officers. That obviously has cost implications which would no doubt have to be reflected in the fees payable by licensees, 4 but in our view that additional cost is one which is justifiable. We recognise, of course, that the great majority of licensees who conduct their businesses in a responsible and compliant manner may resent having to pay enhanced fees in order to provide a means of controlling the behaviour of the minority of licensees who may not operate in the same way; but we consider that a well-run licensing system which reduces, and perhaps even eliminates, irresponsible behaviour on the part of the few is likely at the end of the day to be perceived by the public at large, and by responsible licensees, as being something which is worth paying for.
7.5 The functions of Liquor Licensing Standards Officers would no doubt develop over time. However, as presently advised we see their functions as being of the following kind. They would have statutory powers of entry into all licensed premises at all times, and would be entitled to take such steps as might be necessary to see whether a particular licensee was complying with the terms and conditions of a licence granted to him. Where appropriate, they should, we suggest, liaise with others such as environmental health officers. 5 Where they found evidence of non-compliance they would essentially have two courses open to them. In serious cases of non-compliance they could report the infringement to the licensing board who could then consider whether to call the licensee to a special hearing at which an appropriate sanction might be administered. If, however, the non-compliance was of a less serious kind a Standards Officer should, we believe, be entitled on his own initiative to co-operate with the licensee in order to try to bring about an improvement. We venture to think that this kind of co-operative activity might well occupy quite a large part of a Standards Officer's work. To give just one example of the kind of thing we have in mind, it might be a condition of a premises licence granted to the operator of a small convenience store that the display of alcohol should not extend beyond a prescribed area in the premises. Such a condition might have been imposed in order to guard against what we have previously called 'licensing by stealth' whereby premises in respect of which a licence has been granted may change completely in character and yet still be within the general terms of a particular type of licence. In such a case a Liquor Licensing Standards Officer would be able, in the event of doubt, to offer advice as to how the condition which we have mentioned should be complied with. By the same token, in a case like the one we have used as an example the Officer would be able, through regular visits, to ensure that there was compliance with the condition. If some failure to observe the condition were to be noted, the Officer might well simply allow the licensee a short period to bring about the necessary changes. However, if that were not done, or if there were to be future non-compliance, he would report the matter to the licensing board. We do not suppose for one moment that Standards Officers of the kind we are contemplating are likely to have to spend much, if any, time with those licensees (who are very much in the majority) who run their premises in an efficient and responsible manner. Regretfully, however, there are a few who do not operate their premises in such a manner; and we consider that it will be in the public interest that there should be a ready means for uncovering those who fall short of a desirable standard. That will also, we believe, be for the benefit of responsible licensees by curtailing the activities of less than desirable competitors. For all of the foregoing reasons we recommend:
39. (a) Licensing boards should employ persons to be known as Liquor Licensing Standards Officers whose functions will be to supervise and monitor the operation of the licensing system in a licensing board area.
(b) Those Officers should have a statutory right of entry to all licensed premises.
(c) The main functions of Liquor Licensing Standards Officers should be to co-operate with licensees in order to assist compliance with terms and conditions attached to a licence, and to report to the licensing board any persistent or serious cases of non-compliance.
(d) The National Licensing Forum should give consideration to the role of Liquor Licensing Standards Officers and to their effective liaison with those other officials who are entitled to enter and to inspect licensed premises.
7.6 Obviously, if Liquor Licensing Standards Officers are to report persistent or serious cases of non-compliance to licensing boards who may then impose a sanction if satisfied that the complaint has been established, it will be necessary to have a procedure whereby the nature and details of any complaint are made known to the licensee concerned. We have not sought to work out the detail of any such procedure but, consistently with what we have recommended earlier in relation to intimation of objections, 6 we consider that the details of any complaint made by a Liquor Licensing Standards Officer should be made known to the licensee concerned by the licensing board at the same time as it is intimating a date for a hearing at which that complaint will be considered.
7.7 We do not, however, take the view that only Liquor Licensing Standards Officers should be entitled to bring instances of non-compliance to the notice of a licensing board. Some instances of non-compliance may be uncovered by the police or by others of those who we have earlier suggested should be entitled to make observations or representations to a board at the stage when an application for a licence is first being made. Likewise, any of those with a statutory entitlement to object to such an application may consider it appropriate to complain to a board regarding a perceived failure on the part of a licensee to conduct his business consistently with the terms of his licence and with the promotion of the "licensing principles". In our view any of the foregoing should be entitled to lodge a formal complaint with a licensing board, and the board should then be obliged, after appropriate intimation to the licensee concerned, to hold a hearing for consideration of that complaint. On this matter, therefore, we recommend:
40. A procedure should be devised to enable licensing boards to hold a hearing for consideration of any complaint brought to their notice by a Liquor Licensing Standards Officer or by any person entitled to make observations or representations in respect of, or to object to, an application for a licence. The details of any such complaint should be made known to the licensee concerned by the licensing board at the time when it is intimating a date for a hearing.
Sanctions or penalties to be available to licensing boards
7.8 Under existing law licensing boards have a limited number of sanctions available to them in circumstances where they are of the view that particular licensed premises are being operated in a manner which is unsatisfactory. Under section 31 of the 1976 Act a licence may be suspended for a period of up to one year where the board is satisfied that it is in the public interest for such a suspension to be ordered. Moreover, in terms of sections 65 and 66 of the Act licensing boards may make orders restricting the permitted opening hours in certain circumstances. Under section 65 the circumstances are where "(a) the sale or supply of alcoholic liquor in the afternoon or in the evening in licensed premises or in a registered club is the cause of undue public nuisance or constitutes a threat to public order or safety; or (b) the use of licensed premises is the cause of undue disturbance or public nuisance having regard to the way of life in the locality on a Sunday." Section 66 provides for the temporary restriction of permitted hours for a period of up to three hours where that is considered desirable in the interests of public order or safety. Such a restriction may be applied for by a senior police officer, and it is intended to cater for the possibility of disturbance in the vicinity of an event such as a football match.
7.9 Many of our consultees have criticised the foregoing provisions on a number of grounds. So far as restriction orders under section 65 of the Act are concerned they suggested that they are little used, and that the tendency in recent years, as we have previously noted, has been to extend opening hours rather than to restrict them. It was also observed that restriction orders are not in any event explicitly directed at misconduct on the part of a licensee, so that the orders cannot truly be regarded as any kind of sanction or penalty. The temporary restriction provided for by section 66 was generally regarded as necessary for dealing with exceptional circumstances, but again it was observed that the factors which could give rise to the need for a temporary restriction of opening hours had nothing to do with the conduct of the licensed premises in question. 7
7.10 Suspension of a licence, as provided for by section 31, was quite rightly seen as a penalty which might be imposed in various circumstances amounting in effect to misconduct or mismanagement of licensed premises. However, that provision was also criticised on a number of grounds, some of which are related to each other. First, it was suggested that the effect of an order for suspension is frequently negated because the licensee concerned need only mark an appeal against the decision of the licensing board and the suspension is then lifted until that appeal has been disposed of - possibly many months later. 8 Consultees suggested that it is quite unacceptable that an order which has been made by a licensing board on the basis that it is in the public interest to do so 9 should be capable of having the consequence that the premises in question are free to remain open for business for a prolonged period. A second criticism of the suspension provision is that, because of the consequences which have just been mentioned, some licensing boards are apparently reluctant to make suspension orders at all when, by the simple marking of an appeal, they can be rendered of no effect. A final criticism of the suspension provision which has been made to us by several consultees is that, even if it could be strengthened so that it would take immediate effect in appropriate cases, it is unsatisfactory that the only sanction or penalty available to a licensing board is the one which should be reserved for very serious cases, but with no provision made for less serious cases. Those consultees suggested that in future there should be a range of sanctions available to licensing boards so that they would be able to mark transgressions of all kinds by the imposition of a penalty or sanction which was commensurate with the seriousness of a particular default. It will also, of course, be necessary under the system which we are proposing to consider separately the position of premises licence holders and personal licence holders. We deal first with premises licence holders.
Sanctions in respect of premises licence holders
7.11 Some of our consultees proposed that in future licensing boards should be empowered to impose financial penalties - in effect fines - on errant licensees. However, we do not support that proposal. In the first place, we consider that the imposition of fines is properly a function of a court and not of a body which is largely administrative, and only partly judicial, in character. In the second place, the imposition of fines inevitably gives rise to a problem as to what enforcement procedures should be in place in the event that a fine is not paid. The courts can deal with that problem by the threat, and ultimately the imposition, of imprisonment in default of payment, but we do not consider that that would be appropriate in the case of licensing boards. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we reject the suggestion that licensing boards should be empowered to impose purely financial penalties.
7.12 On the other hand, we consider that licensing boards should have available to them a range of sanctions which they can apply when they are satisfied, on the basis of a complaint made by a Liquor Licensing Standards Officer or any other person entitled to do so, that a premises licensee has failed to comply with the terms and conditions which are attached to the licence. In this connection it should be borne in mind that, if our earlier recommendations in this chapter relative to Liquor Licensing Standards Officers are accepted, many transgressions by a licensee will not come to the notice of a licensing board until after informal attempts to secure compliance have been tried and failed. Accordingly, it is to be assumed that cases brought before a board will often have some sort of background of non-compliance, and for that reason will not be entirely trivial. On the other hand, even against that background it is to be anticipated that cases coming before a licensing board may cover a very broad spectrum of seriousness; and for that reason we consider that a wide range of sanctions should be available. Some of those which we are about to propose will, we recognise, have financial consequences for the licensee concerned. However, while we have rejected the proposal that boards should have power to impose direct financial penalties in the form of fines, we do not have difficulty regarding other types of sanctions or penalties which may have financial consequences. As a general proposition we consider that, in determining the appropriate sanction in a given case, a licensing board should be required to consider what is necessary for the promotion of the "licensing principles".
7.13 In our view the range of sanctions which should be available to a licensing board in respect of a premises licence should range from, at one end of the spectrum, a formal warning or admonition to, at the other end, revocation, as opposed to mere suspension, of a licence. In between there could be a variety of sanctions of increasing severity. Those might include a reduction in authorised opening hours. Other modifications of the terms of the licence might also be appropriate in certain cases. At a higher level of severity an order for suspension of the premises licence might be made for periods of various lengths. Finally, the ultimate sanction could be the complete revocation of a licence. We do not consider it appropriate that we should seek to set out a definitive recommendation as to the precise details of the sanctions which should in future be available to licensing boards, and for present purposes we confine ourselves to recommending:
41. Licensing boards should have available to them a range of sanctions in respect of premises licences in order to deal appropriately with cases where there has been a failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the licence. In determining the appropriate sanction licensing boards should consider what is necessary in order to promote the licensing principles. The available sanctions should range between a formal warning or admonition to revocation of a licence.
7.14 Obviously, the imposition of any of the sanctions which we have just recommended would have to be open to an appeal at the instance of the licensee concerned. But, as we have already observed, if a sanction involving closure or restriction of authorised hours is to be automatically suspended while an appeal is pending, that means that licensed premises will be able to remain open for business as normal, possibly for a prolonged period, notwithstanding that the licensing board in question has concluded that it would not be in accordance with the licensing principles for that to happen. We make certain recommendations later in this report which are designed to make the appeal process more speedy than is the case at present 10 but, even if those recommendations were to be given effect, the consequence would still be that a sanction imposed by a licensing board would have no practical effect until an appeal had been disposed of. We do not consider that it is in the public interest that that should be so. On the other hand, we recognise that there may be occasions when a sanction imposed by a licensing board could properly be suspended pending the determination of an appeal. In our view the best way of dealing with this will be by introducing a system something like that which exists at the moment under criminal law. Under that branch of law a person who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment may seek to obtain his freedom pending disposal of his appeal by applying to the High Court for interim liberation. By analogy with that, we consider that, where a sanction involving closure of premises for any period, or a reduction in authorised hours, has been imposed on a licensee, and where that licensee has marked an appeal against that, he should be entitled to apply for interim suspension of the sanction pending determination of his appeal. Given that, as will be seen later, we are proposing that in future an appeal should lie to the sheriff principal rather than the sheriff, it would appear to be logical that an application for interim suspension should come before the sheriff principal. However, we are of the view that any such application should be dealt with as quickly as possible, and we doubt whether it would be practicable for sheriffs principal to deal with such applications within the time limits which we regard as essential. To take but one, admittedly extreme, example, were a sanction to be imposed in the Western Isles, it would probably be difficult for the Sheriff Principal of Grampian, Highland and Islands, who is normally based in either Aberdeen or Inverness, to hear an application within a matter of days - particularly if at the relevant time he was heavily involved with other business, or indeed was absent because of illness or annual leave. For that reason we consider that applications for interim suspension of a sanction imposed by a licensing board should be heard by the local sheriff for the area of the licensing board in question. Since time will be of the essence in such cases we suggest that, where an appeal has been marked and the appellant has made an application for interim suspension of the sanction, the licensing board should be required to give written reasons for its decision within seven days of the appeal being marked, and the sheriff should be required to hear the application within seven days thereafter. The sheriff should also be required to give his decision on the application forthwith; and, we suggest, his decision should not be open to any appeal. Under the procedure which we propose the sanction determined by a licensing board would be effective until such time as an appeal is marked, and thereafter until such time as an application for interim suspension is heard by the sheriff. The sanction would, of course, be suspended in the event of an application for interim suspension then being successful: but, if any such application were to be unsuccessful, it would remain in force pending the final determination of the appeal. We therefore recommend:
42. Where a sanction involving closure of licensed premises for any period, or a reduction in authorised hours, has been imposed by a licensing board, and the premises licensee concerned has marked an appeal against that decision, he or she should be entitled to apply to the local sheriff for interim suspension of the sanction pending disposal of the appeal. However, where interim suspension is not granted, the sanction should remain effective pending the determination of any appeal.
Sanctions in respect of personal licence holders
7.15 A personal licence holder may, we think, contravene the terms of his licence in one of two ways. He may be convicted of a relevant offence or, where he is the designated personal licence holder in respect of specified premises, he may simply be shown to have failed to carry out those duties in an acceptable manner which is consistent with the promotion of the "licensing principles". So far as conviction of a relevant offence is concerned we have already commented on the significance which that should have when a person, for the first time, or upon renewal, applies for a personal licence. 11 However, what we are now concerned with is the situation where someone who is already the holder of a personal licence is convicted of a relevant offence during the time when he is in fact the holder of that licence and is working in licensed premises, or indeed is managing such premises as the designated personal licence holder. Elsewhere in this report 12 we make recommendations designed to ensure that, where such a conviction is incurred, notification of it should be given as soon as possible to the relevant licensing board or boards. However, a question remains as to the action which should be taken in such circumstances.
7.16 There are, we think, two possibilities. One possibility, which is the one proposed in the Licensing Bill for England and Wales, is to grant authority to the court convicting of the relevant offence to make an appropriate order in respect of the personal licence. In terms of that Bill the convicting court is to have power (a) to order forfeiture of the licence, or (b) to order its suspension for a period not exceeding six months. The other possibility is to deny such a power to the convicting court but instead to allow a licensing board, to whom details of the relevant conviction have been communicated, to convene a hearing and, having heard from the licensee in question, to impose an appropriate sanction. On balance we consider that it will be preferable that appropriate steps should be taken by the licensing board rather than by the court. Our main reason for coming to that view is that a licensing board may well have knowledge of past misdemeanours (not involving the commission of an offence) on the part of the person concerned, but such knowledge would not be available to a court. As will be seen shortly, 13 we are proposing that licensing boards should have certain disciplinary powers in respect of personal licence holders where, albeit not constituting an offence, there has been a failure to carry out duties in a manner which is consistent with the licensing principles. In some cases such procedures will create a background which ought properly to be taken into account when a relevant offence has been committed, and when consideration must then be given to the possible forfeiture or suspension of the personal licence. As we have said, a licensing board will be better placed than a court to take that kind of background into account. The relevant licensing board for that purpose will be the one for the area where the personal licence holder in question is currently working.
7.17 One problem associated with the foregoing proposal (and it would also be a problem if courts were to have power to forfeit or suspend personal licences) is that the licence holder may not disclose to the court that he is in fact the holder of a personal licence. That fact will, of course, be obvious where the offence of which the person is convicted is an offence under licensing law; but it will not necessarily be obvious where the offence is of a different kind. We therefore tend to think that there would be advantage if a central database of personal licence holders were to be linked in some way to the data held by Scottish Criminal Records Office so that conviction of a relevant offence would instantly reveal that the person concerned is a personal licence holder. The relevant chief constable could then bring that offence to the notice of the appropriate licensing board if that had not already been done by the clerk of the convicting court.
7.18 A further consideration which arises in the context of the commission of relevant offences by a personal licence holder is whether a premises licence holder should be answerable to the licensing board where such an offence has been committed by a personal licence holder in his or her employment. We doubt whether it would be appropriate, under the general system which we are proposing, for a premises licence holder to be vicariously liable under criminal law in respect of offences committed by a personal licence holder. On the other hand we regard it as essential that a licensing board should be entitled, where a relevant offence has been committed, to examine the role played by the relevant premises licence holder and to consider whether any act or omission on his or her part has contributed to the commission of the offence. In many instances, no doubt, it will be perfectly clear that the offence was committed without the knowledge of, or any encouragement by, the premises licence holder. However, it is not inconceivable that in some cases (for example, supplying alcohol to persons under age) the practice in question has been known to the premises licence holder, and may indeed have been actively encouraged. In such cases it would be consistent with the licensing principles that a licensing board should be entitled to hold the premises licence holder to account as well as considering the position of the personal licence holder.
7.19 A final matter to be considered in this context is the question whether a licensing board should be entitled to take any action when a personal licence holder has been charged in respect of a relevant offence but that charge has not yet come before a court for disposal, and where, for that reason, there has been no finding of guilt. This is something which has caused problems under the existing licensing scheme. By virtue of instructions issued some years ago by the Lord Advocate a chief constable is permitted to bring to the notice of a licensing board a limited amount of information about pending charges against a licence holder. Sometimes, but not always, this is brought to the notice of a licensing board when it is considering an application for renewal of a licence. The problem, of course, is whether it is consistent with principles of justice that a licensing board should be entitled to take note of a pending charge - possibly by refusing an application for renewal or, under the scheme which we are proposing, by forfeiting a licence - when guilt has not yet been established in a court of law, and when at the end of the day the person concerned might be acquitted of the charge. It is not unknown for some licensing boards to take such a course: but many people, including in particular many lawyers, have considerable unease about such a practice. They contend, among other things, that it contravenes article 6.2 of the ECHR which provides (consistently, of course, with Scots law) that everyone charged with a criminal offence is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. On the other hand, there are those who contend that it is in the public interest that a licensing board should be entitled to take speedy and appropriate action notwithstanding that a pending charge has not yet been disposed of. We have not consulted on this matter; and in any event we think that it raises important issues which go beyond the confines of licensing law. For that reason we make no proposal on this other than to suggest that it is something which calls for a clear statement of policy from the Lord Advocate and other Scottish Ministers.
7.20 On this whole matter, therefore, we recommend:
43 (a) Where a personal licence holder is convicted of a relevant offence the licensing board for the area in which that person is working should hold a hearing in order to determine whether the personal licence should continue in force. The licensing board should be entitled, where it considers that it is necessary for the promotion of the licensing principles, to order forfeiture of the licence or to order its suspension for a period not exceeding six months.
(b) If possible, arrangements should be made to link a computerised database of personal licence holders to the database held at Scottish Criminal Records Office so that a relevant conviction can be instantly identified. It should then be for the relevant chief constable to bring that offence to the notice of the appropriate licensing board.
(c) Where a personal licence holder has been convicted of a relevant offence the appropriate licensing board should be entitled to call the premises licence holder to a hearing to determine whether a variation of the terms of that licence is necessary for the promotion of the licensing principles.
(d) The Lord Advocate and Scottish Ministers should give consideration to the formulation and publication of a clear policy relative to the question whether a licensing board should, or should not, be entitled to take note of a pending charge relative to a relevant offence prior to guilt of that charge having been established by a court of law.
7.21 Where a personal licence holder has not been charged with or convicted of a relevant offence, but a licensing board is satisfied, on the basis of a complaint made to it, and after an appropriate hearing, that the person in question has failed to carry out his duties in an acceptable manner which is consistent with the "licensing principles", it should, in our view, be open to that licensing board to take cognisance of that, and to determine what sanction, if any, should be imposed. In that context we consider that, as in the case of other sanctions, the guiding consideration should be what is necessary for the promotion of the "licensing principles". Against that background it may well be that forfeiture or suspension will be seen as appropriate sanctions. However, we consider that provision should be made for a much less severe sanction such as an admonition, or what might be described as an "endorsement" of the licence. We are not suggesting that there should be a system, such as that under the Road Traffic Acts, where a specified number of endorsements, or penalty points, will lead to an automatic disqualification in the event of further offending. On the other hand, we think that there may be circumstances where a breach of duty will properly call for some recognition, albeit of a minor kind, but with the realisation that even minor offending, if repeated, could result in a much more serious sanction at a future stage. We suggest, however, that any admonition or endorsement should no longer be capable of being taken into account after the expiry of a period of 10 years. We should just add that, in the situation which we are currently contemplating, the relevant licensing board which will take the necessary action will obviously be the one for the area where the personal licence holder in question is working at the time rather than the board, if different, which originally granted the personal licence. We therefore recommend:
44. Where a personal licence holder has not been charged with or convicted of a relevant offence but is found by the licensing board for the area where he is working to have failed to carry out his duties in an acceptable manner which is consistent with the licensing principles, the licensing board should be entitled to impose a sanction which is necessary for the promotion of the licensing principles. Such a sanction may involve forfeiture or suspension of the licence, but it should also be open to the board to impose a much lesser sanction such as an admonition or an endorsement of the personal licence. Any such admonition or endorsement should be capable of being taken into account by a licensing board in the event of it having to consider any subsequent failure on the part of the licence holder in question. However, it should no longer be capable of being taken into account after the expiry of a period of 10 years.
« Previous | Contents | Next »