Personal Licences - When is a Relevant Conviction Grounds for Refusal?
Posted: Monday 12 July 2010
Glasgow Sheriff Court has recently considered an appeal against a decision of Glasgow Licensing Board to refuse a personal licence due to the existence of a conviction for drink driving on the part of the Applicant1[1]
In that case, although the Chief Constable was obliged to notify the Board of the Applicant’s conviction in terms of Section 73 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, (“the 2005 Act”), he made no recommendation that the application for a personal licence should be refused because of it.
As a notice of a relevant conviction had been received, the Board required to convene a hearing in order to determine the application. Following that hearing, the personal licence application was refused by Glasgow Licensing Board on the basis that it was necessary for the purposes of the crime prevention objective enshrined within the 2005 Act.
The 2005 Act contains 5 licensing objectives which underpin every decision taken by a licensing authority in connection with the authorisation of the sale of alcohol in Scotland. These objectives are:-
- Preventing crime and disorder
- Securing public safety
- Preventing public nuisance
- Protecting and improving public health
- Protecting children from harm
In the appeal hearing before the sheriff, it was argued on behalf of the applicant, that the mere existence of a “relevant offence”, of itself, did not justify the board in refusing the personal licence application on the basis of the crime prevention objective.
In deciding that the personal licence should be granted in favour of the applicant, the sheriff agreed, stating that in order to justify a refusal of a personal licence application following notice from the Chief Constable of a “relevant offence”, a licensing board must identify a “separate, discernable factor pointing to necessity for the purposes of the crime prevention objective.”
Further, the sheriff was of the view that the Board, in this case had acted in an unreasonable manner, stating,
“The mere existence of the offence…..did not justify the conclusion that it was necessary to refuse the application. There required to be a discrete reason for the board’s conclusion that it was so necessary and that reason required to be properly explained. No such reason or explanation appears………”
Lastly, the sheriff was critical of the Board’s decision on the basis that the Chief Constable had not recommended that the application be refused. In his view, the sheriff considered that where a Iicensing board decided to take a contrary view to the chief constable, the board must at the very least provide an explanation as to why that view has been taken by them.
In all, this decision provides applicants with some clarity that the mere fact that they have been convicted of a relevant offence in the past is not of itself enough to prevent them obtaining a personal licence for the sale of alcohol.
For more information please contact Susan Leslie.
[1] Manmeet Arora v Glasgow City Council, Sh Ct (Glasgow), Sheriff C A L Scott, 17 May 2010.
