There are two very interesting points made in the article that people such as Object, Charlie Dacke and Rachel Reeves should become thoroughly acquainted with. The first is as follows....
It has been accepted that a licence is classed as a possession capable of protection under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. This clearly states that a person has a right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and the case of Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden (1989) 13 EHRR classifies a licence as something capable of protection.
I am no lawyer, but I think this means that just because a club is near to a school uniform shop and opens 5 hours after the aforesaid shop closes, its no reason to withhold an operators license.
The second point should be closely considered by Portsmouth Council....
The Licensing Authority had set out in their policy that it would make decisions set against the back drop of The Provision of Services Regulations [S.I. 2009/2999]. Regulation 24(1) which imposes three important tests highlighting that any refusal must be:
Non discriminatory
Necessary
Proportionate
The Regulations serve as a useful reminder for decision makers in all licensing forums that they must not go beyond what is necessary. This is an important factor as it is clear that this means before refusing a licence, the Authority should consider whether the imposition of conditions would satisfy concerns and be proportionate.
There are options other than refusing a licence and Councils need to understand this otherwise we will start to see lengthy and expensive court actions that Licensing Departments will lose.
Leeds Council delivered well considered judgements and this needs to be reflected throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The industry was at times slow to react to the threat posed by Object and its activists, but now we can see that law firms are ready to act and have developed a deep understanding of Licensing Law as it applies to their clients.
There are options other than refusing a licence and Councils need to understand this otherwise we will start to see lengthy and expensive court actions that Licensing Departments will lose.
Leeds Council delivered well considered judgements and this needs to be reflected throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The industry was at times slow to react to the threat posed by Object and its activists, but now we can see that law firms are ready to act and have developed a deep understanding of Licensing Law as it applies to their clients.
We can also see that an increasing number of Licensing Departments are becoming more aware of the law and what the lap dancing industry is really about and are not being swayed by the moralist, hysterical value judgements of designer feminists.
The war is not over, but we are ready for the next assault......
Don't know about anyone else but a nil policy seems neither Necessary or Proportionate. Councils who have applied nil policies because there are no existing venues could run into a lot of problems if people wanted to challenge them. However more likely people wanting to open venues would choose places where they don't have to battle from day 1.
ReplyDelete