A magistrates' court has decided that licensing hearings held remotely are lawful after a challenge by a closed down nightclub.
District Judge Nermine Abdel Sayed, sitting at Bromley Magistrates' Court, found the London Borough of Lewisham can determine its own procedure when conducting licensing meetings.
The local authority had revoked nightclub Silks’ premises licence following violent incidents at the venue last year. A series of hearings were held over Microsoft Teams before the decision was made.
The venue challenged Lewisham’s use of a remote hearing. The council said neither the Licensing Act 2003 nor the Licensing Act (Hearing) Regulations expressly require a hearing to take place in person implying that licensing committees can regulate their own procedure.
The judgment found the relevant legislative framework uses the word ‘place’ to describe where a licensing hearing is to be held but it is not defined in either LA 2003 or the regulations.
It said: ‘A ‘place’ may be a physical location, but I see no reason why it cannot be a virtual platform. Nor do I see any reason why ‘attend’ cannot include electronic attendance. There is nothing within the language of the provisions which limits the scope of the word ‘place’ (as there is in the Local Government Act 1972).’
The regulations, the judge found, ‘do not make any provision regarding remote hearings’.
She said: ‘Whether a hearing is conducted in person, or remotely, is a matter of procedure. Since there is no prohibition on remote hearings, the London Borough of Lewisham is able to determine its own procedure. The remote conduct of a licensing hearing is permitted in law.’
The preliminary legal issue, which relates to Silks’ premises licensing appeal, is thought to be the first case in which the courts have been asked to consider the question of remote licensing hearings.
Matt Lewin appeared for the London Borough of Lewisham; Jeremy Phillips KC and Leo Charamlambides, instructed by David Dadds of Dadds LLP, for Silks.
This article is now closed for comment.
6 Readers' comments