Do Interim steps continue pending Appeal? - A step further Eastwards
2014
Following a hearing on the 11th July in the Westminster Magistrates' Court District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe has issued her judgement concerning the issue of interim steps and whether they continue post the substantive review hearing and throughout any appeal process.
Upon an application of the Commission of the Metropolitan Police the Court was asked to consider this issue.
The Respondents were the licence holders of a premises in Westminster which had been the subject of Summary review proceedings. Interim Steps were made suspending the licence and at the substantive hearing the licence was revoked. The Respondents chose to Appeal the decision and a hearing is listed for October.
The purpose of the application was to determine whether or not the interim steps remained in force following determination of a summary review and therefore whether the retail of alcohol could be authorised.
Following arguments for and against the proposition DJ Roscoe concluded the interim steps are still in force post the substantive review hearing and irrespective of the ongoing appeal.
We have reported on this issue several times before as the Judgements around the issue are published. In the case of Chief Constable of Cheshire v Oates 19.12.2011 District Judge Knight was of the opinion that the interim steps no longer took effect following the substantive hearing. This was a decision in the Magistrates' Court the decision could not bind other Judges, including DJ Roscoe. The 2011 decision in Oates appeared to be reversed in the case of 93 Feet East Ltd. v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2013] EWHC 2716 (Admin) when a contrary view was taken. Interim steps did persist following a review hearing unless specifically revoked by the Licensing Authority. It is worth noting that this was only a permissions hearing and is unreported, rather than a full hearing, although we understand the matter was fully argued. This also calls into question whether it can be binding.
In this case DJ Roscoe heard representations from leading Counsel that the 93 Feet East Judgement was binding (an argument advanced by the Police and Licensing Authority) while the Respondent argued it should be ignored completely.
In summing up DJ Roscoe stated:
"Finally, I have not considered whether or not the decision in 93Feet East is authoritative or not as I have not relied on it in reaching my decision."
The current position appears to be two Magistrates' Judgements by learned District Judges contradicting one another and still no agreement on whether the 93 Feet East case is binding!
Another blow for the 'binding' camp but no decisive (or binding) blow yet landed.
As we have stated before, there may still be life in this point yet!
We will keep you posted.