Code of practice for courts

The Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks Society, want to see much stiffer penalties for selling alcohol to under-age drinkers. In response to widespread concern about the problem of under-age drinking and unlawful sales to minors, have published a Code of Practice for use in the courts. Ironically, this occurs just as the David Knowles case reveals a disturbing loophole in the law.

The main points are:

There is concern that the current maximum penalty for offences involving breach of licensing laws is inadequate. Courts accept that they must apply the law as it stands not as they would like it to be. However people who deliberately or recklessly flout the law in relation to illegal sales of alcohol must believe that, if caught, the sanctions will be substantial.
It is recommended that courts consider a substantial penalty for any person convicted of an offence involving sales of alcohol to persons underage. A similar penalty should apply to anyone convicted of buying alcohol in on-licenced premises on behalf of an underage person.
It is recommended that all courts make arrangements to ensure that convictions of licensees are brought to the attention of the licensing committee to enable the committee to examine the circumstances of the offence and decide whether it is so serious that revocation of the licence is justified.
Section 169(8) of the Licensing Act 1964 allows a bench to order the forfeiture of a justices' licence if the licensee has been convicted for the second time of an offence involving the sale of intoxicating liquor to, or for consumption, by a person under 18. There is no requirement for a referral to the licensing justices for such an order of forfeiture to be made. Courts need to examine the circumstances in which young offenders obtained access to alcohol and decide whether this could have been prevented by proper parental care.

Where offenders before the youth court have committed offences under the influence of drink, their parents should be bound over to take proper care of them, if it is clear from the circumstances that the parents ought to have been concerned about their child's whereabouts.

Those responsible for framing this code and administering the law should be aware of the case of the tragic death of fourteen year old David Knowles and the shocking legal loophole which allowed the people who sold him alcohol to escape prosecution...

The David Knowles Case

David Knowles was 14 when he was killed running over a major road near his home in Pudsey. Immediately before his reckless and final act, he had consumed three cans of lager. On his way home with some friends from football practice, David passed a Threshers off-licence called the Drink Cabin. The other boys in the group asked David, who was the only one not in football strip, to go in an buy the bottles of the alcopop, Hooch. Having done this, he decided that he too would like an alcoholic drink, returned to the same off-licence, and bought four cans of lager. His friends subsequently reported that as they walked along David drank three of the cans.

Their path took them next to the Leeds ring road, a heavily used dual carriageway. David's friends say that at this point, without any warning or explanation, he shouted out, "Let's run!", jumped over the fence, and dashed down the embankment. He ran straight across one carriageway, crossed the central reservation, and, in negotiating the second carriageway, was struck by an oncoming vehicle. He received major injuries from which he subsequently died.

The police were quickly on the scene and took statements from witnesses. They then went to the Threshers off-licence and seized the security video which showed fourteen year old David being served alcohol on the two separate occasions by different members of staff. On the basis of this evidence and the statements which had been taken, the Crown Prosecution Service decided to press charges against the two Threshers employees.

The prosecution could not go ahead because counsel's opinion, sought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, was that it would fail because of precedents set by the appeal Russell versus the Director of Public Prosecutions (1997) and other cases dating from 1968 and 1996. Russell v. DPP confirmed that people selling alcohol to persons under 18 can be found guilty under Section 169 (1) of the relevant Act if they are the licensee or the directly employed servant of the licensee. However, in Russell v. DDP, it was stated that "a trainee branch manager employed by a limited company was not a 'servant' of the licensee... but a 'servant' of the employing company for the purposes of Section 169."

In the case of David Knowles, the persons who sold him the lager were employed by a national off-licence chain and not by the licensee whose name appeared above the door of their temporary place of work. This technicality served as immunity from prosecution.

John Knowles, David's father, looked for help to Paul Truswell, the Member for Pudsey who put down an Early Day Motion drawing the attention of parliament to this alarming loophole in the law. Only 36 members of the House of Commons have so far seen fit to sign it. Mr Truswell continues his commendable efforts to persuade his fellow parliamentarians to support him. He said, "The Licensing Act of 1964 was framed when national off-licence chains and supermarket sales of alcohol lay in the future. This situation was not foreseen and must now be remedied."

Mr Truswell has presented a petition to the House of Commons, signed by 1200 of his constituents, requesting Parliament "amend the Licensing Act of 1964 to correct this major defect in the law which no longer provides the protection to people under 18 originally intended." He has also had meetings with George Howarth, the Home Office minister responsible for licensing, who has instructed his legal advisers to scrutinize the case. They will decide whether there is indeed a loophole or whether there has been a misinterpretation of the law. Paul Truswell believes it is 99.9 per cent certain that the loophole exists. When this is confirmed it will be necessary to find a way to remedy the situation by an amendment or new legislation.

Given the fact that the law was recently altered to allow under 18 year olds under the apprenticeship scheme to serve in bars and off-licences, it looks as though a youth of 16, employed as a trainee by a central organisation, may sell alcohol to a child without fear of prosecution. It is a loophole which will hang more young people if it is not closed swiftly.