LICENSING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
9TH FEBRUARY 2004

58.        PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING

        The Committee considered the report of the Licensing Manager and correspondence from Mr Roger Gall and Jim Knight MP. The Licensing Manager introduced the item and set out the Council's position with regard to public entertainment licensing. Members were circulated with a briefing note prepared by the Locum Legal Services Manager.

        The Committee heard a representation from Mr Gall who made reference to Section 182 of the 1964 Act regarding two or more performers. He referred to a case concerning the Cove House Inn who were advised in December 2000 to discontinue performances or face prosecution where more than two persons were performing. Mr Gall felt that the Justices Licences should be adequate to cover such cases. He also stated that the Council could face legal challenge under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

Mr Gall urged the Committee to adopt a definition of performer to one who is paid or obligated to stage a performance to an audience.

In reply to a question as to whether the Council could adopt a policy defining 'performer' for the purposes of Public Entertainment Licences the Locum Legal Services Manager advised Members that each case needed to be considered on its merits in accordance with statutory requirements and the definition of 'performer' based on case law. This assessment would be carried out by the Licensing Manager in consultation with the Legal Department in accordance with the policy agreed by the Social/Community Committee.

The Committee then discussed what the definition of an impromptu performance might be as opposed to one which was planned in advance. It was acknowledged that members of the public who sing together could constitute an impromptu performance.

In reply to a question the Locum Legal Services Manager stated that she was not aware of any local authorities who took an alternative view to using statutory requirements and case law to determine individual cases. She referred to the Ombudsman decision in respect of the Cove House Inn case which stated that it was satisfied with the Council's enforcement of the 1982 Act. The Licensing Manager advised Members that the Cove House Inn had advertised the event in the local newspaper and on an advertising board outside the premises.

Members felt that it was not possible for them, within existing legislation, to establish a policy for determining such cases and that the present system of the Licensing Manager determining licensing matters by applying statutory requirements and case law should be confirmed.

However, whilst the Committee noted that under the new Licensing Act 2003 the Committee would be able to adopt guidance, they felt that clarification regarding current practice was necessary.

RESOLVED:-        That the Locum Legal Services Manager write to the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport for clarification on the legality of local authorities setting down policy defining 'impromptu performances' in relation to public entertainment licensing under current legislation.

59.        DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS

        RESOLVED:-        That the dates for the next meetings be 23rd March and 11th May 2004 at 3.30pm.

I am not sure if this was the meeting I attended where the members were told by the offices that the law would not permit them to decide a policy that the Social and Community Committee [now defunct] was told the law would allow the members to establish and decide in 2001?

It would seem as if the members are only allowed by law to do what the members wish them to decide.

Despite this nonsense smoke-screen - the simple fact is that as the word 'performer' is not defined in the legislation and not legally determined by any case law - the Committee could choose - perfectly legally - any definition they wished - to issue as guidance to the Licensing Manager. As the current interpretation is not compatible with the ECHR - the Council MUST change it.