R. (on the application of Bushell) v Newcastle Licensing Justices, Ultimate Leisure plc, Rindberg Holding Company Limited, Peel Hotels plc, Newcastle City Council

摘要

The Claimants lived in close proximity to premises owned by Ultimate Leisure plc (Ultimate), formerly known as the Gresham Hotel (Gresham), Osborne Road. Rindberg Holding Co Ltd (Rindberg) and Peel Hotels Ltd (Peel) were interested parties who both owned licensed premises in Osborne Road. In October 2000 and again in November 2002 Ultimate applied for a justices' on-licence for the Gresham. Each application was opposed by the police, Newcastle City Council and a substantial number of local residents on grounds of public disorder, drunkenness, noise-nuisance, litter, vandalism and road safety. Both applications were withdrawn. In November 2002, Ultimate applied for the special removal to the Gresham of an old on-licence (as defined by s. 12(1) of the Licensing Act 1964 (the Act)) that it held in relation to premises, which were to be demolished, known as Mim's Bar. The initial application was unsuccessful. A second application for the special removal of the Mim's licence was lodged on February 12, 2003 and first came before the court on March 11, 2003. On that date the Clerk to the Licensing Justices made arrangements for a notice to be fixed to the door of the court advising that the application would be adjourned to a new hearing date. Notwithstanding the unequivocal statement that the hearing was to be adjourned the Licensing Justices did in fact begin to hear the application and were given advice by the Clerk as to whether account should be taken of planning issues with regard to the Gresham. The Clerk directed that planning issues would not be an issue at the next meeting. On April 7, 2003 and having heard submissions on behalf of the Claimants and Rindberg, the Licensing Justices ruled on three preliminary issues. First it was submitted on behalf of the Claimants that the course of action adopted by Ultimate in applying for a special removal of the Mim's Bar on-licence amounted in the circumstances to an abuse of process. Secondly, that the special removal provisions in ss. 12 and 15 of the Act were incompatible with Art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), alternatively that s. 12 should be "written down" so as to comply with Art.8 by the addition of the phrase "by reason of their location" to s. 12(4)(b). Thirdly, that in any event the proceedings ought to have been adjourned until the position with regard to planning consent for the proposed user of the Gresham was resolved. The Justices rejected each of the submissions. The Claimants sought judicial review of the Justices decision.