Jersey Unreported Judgments

Reference to Article 9 Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.

[2006]JRC078

Licensing Assembly

23 May 2006

Reference by the Attorney General pursuant to Article 9 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 of Licences of Le Hocq Inn Limited.

S. C. Nicolle, Q.C., Solicitor General, for the Attorney General.

Advocate R. C. L. Juste for Le Hocq Inn Limited.

Decision

BAILIFF:

1.        This is a reference by the Attorney General of the first and third category licences held by Le Hocq Inn Limited ("the licensee") pursuant to Article 9 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.  The facts underlying the reference are set out in the Attorney General's representation and are not substantially in dispute.  The licensee holds licences for the premises known as Le Hocq Inn in St Clement.  On the ground floor there is a public bar and a lounge bar.  On the first floor there is a restaurant with seating for fifty diners.

2.        For a number of years the registered manager of the premises was Mr David Parish.  It is accepted by the Solicitor General, who appeared for the Attorney General in relation to this reference, that the premises were well run during Mr Parish's time as manager, and the police had no grounds for any complaint.  In or about April 2005 Mr Parish left the Le Hocq Inn to become manager of other licensed premises.  The exact date is not known, but it cannot have been later than 26^th April 2005.

3.        Unfortunately there was some confusion about the appointment of his successor.  The Licensee had offered the job to Mr Robert Moore on 20^th April but the appropriate steps were not taken within the statutory time limit for Mr Moore to be registered by the Royal Court.  Between 26^th April and 12^th May (when a letter was written to the Connétable of St Clement) the premises were operating without a registered or properly appointed manager.  The Licensee has subsequently been prosecuted for this breach of the licensing law and fined £250.

4.        The events which are the subject of this reference took place on Saturday 7^th May 2005.  Mr Moore was not on duty but was in fact dining on the premises.  At about 10:30 pm one Karl McShane arrived at the premises with Alexandra Snowden.  McShane was drunk.  He was aggressive and argumentative.  He was using foul language and at one stage he lowered his trousers and underwear to show a tattoo on his buttocks.  After this incident he kicked the bar on five occasions very hard for no apparent reason.  Earlier he had invited others to fight with him.  He was not asked to leave the premises.  During this time he ordered and consumed four double vodkas and lemonade which he drank in quick succession.  McShane and Miss Snowden left the premises at about 11 pm.  McShane drove his motor car and on the way home struck a pedestrian causing very serious injuries.  McShane was subsequently convicted of various offences and sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment.

5.        The barman on duty in the public bar at the material time was Mr Blake Campbell.  He was twenty and had a part-time job at the inn, where he had worked for about a month.  He had some four months' experience of working at a public house in London.  Mr Campbell conceded that McShane was drunk when he entered the premises.  He was loud and arrogant although Mr Campbell said that he had seen worse.  He admitted serving McShane with alcohol.  He thought that he was under no obligation to stop serving people merely because they had been drinking already.  He had witnessed McShane's aggression and lewd behaviour but had done nothing about it.  He said that generally he would not serve anyone who had trouble standing.  He claimed not to know that it was an offence to permit drunkenness on licensed premises nor to serve alcohol to a person who was under the influence of alcohol.  Ultimately he admitted to the police that he had not fulfilled his responsibilities as a barman.

6.        Mr Moore, the manager (albeit unregistered), was also interviewed under caution.  He had not been on duty but he had looked into the public bar on one occasion and all seemed to be in order.  He did not know whether Mr Campbell had received any training for the job.  He himself claimed not to have received any formal induction although he had learned on the job from working with the former manager.  There was an assistant manager working at the premises that evening, but she was wholly engaged in the lounge bar which was extremely busy.  She did not have the opportunity to go into the public bar during that evening.

7.        The result was that an inexperienced and untrained barman aged twenty was in sole charge of a busy public bar on a Saturday evening.  It is not wholly surprising that things went wrong.

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 Licensing 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 1999/30, 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 as 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 licence 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 his 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 Assembly has stated on many occasions, and we repeat it again, that it is unacceptable for licensees to fail to comply with their obligations so that intoxicated persons are discharged on to the streets and public areas of the island.  Drunkenness is the cause of much violent crime and most of the noisy and anti-social behaviour which is prevalent particularly at weekends.  We do not ignore the responsibility of the individual to consume alcohol with moderation.  But those who profit from the sale of alcohol have a particular responsibility to prevent persons from becoming drunk on their premises.  A person who is drunk is a potential danger to himself and, more importantly, to others.  We wish to encourage the Attorney General to refer to the Assembly the licence of any licence holder either where there is a failure of effective management or where a serious breach of the obligations of a licensee has taken place.

10.      The licensee in this case was guilty of gross breaches of its obligations.  It appointed a manager who was at that time unable properly to fulfil the responsibilities of the post.  It allowed an inexperienced and incompetent barman to exercise sole responsibility for a public bar on a busy night.  It had in place no adequate system for the training of its employees as to their respective duties and functions under the Licensing Law.  Finally, it served alcohol to an individual who was drunk and who was later responsible for serious injury to a third party.  We cannot condone such conduct.  We accept in mitigation that the individuals in question are no longer employed by the licensee and that the facts have been admitted and regret expressed.  We also accept that, until the change in management, the premises were properly conducted.  We take all those factors into account.  Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the licences will be suspended with immediate effect until midnight on 19^th June 2006.

Authorities

Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.

Overend Holdings [1982] Limited 1999/30.