Judge keeps doors open

A TEST case brought by the Soho Society could fundamentally change licensing hearings throughout Britain.
Currently, under the government’s controversial Licensing Act only applicants and local authorities can make representations if a matter goes to appeal but individuals, even if they have given evidence to a council hearing, are barred from appearing.
But in the first case of its kind, the Soho Society has challenged the Act and on Wednesday appeared at Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court in front of District Judge Purdy, to argue their case.
If they are successful it could trigger thousands of cases being brought by residents against the decisions of local councils.
And it would be a humiliating blow to the Labour government which is already facing a barrage of criticism from people who fear the new Licensing Act will encourage binge drinking.
The Soho Society argues that there is nothing in the law that specially bans residents from making representations at the appeal court.
The society has used the appeal by the lesbian strip club the Candy Bar, in Carlisle Street, Soho, which is appealing against Westminster Council’s decision to reject their application for extended hours.
Glen Suarez, from the society, told the court: “I think it (the section of the Act has been misunderstood, it does not talk about who has the right to appear, it is about who has the duty.
“It says X, Y and Z shall be respondents.“
It is entirely silent on who has the right to appear.”
He added: “If we had to rely on Westminster Council to make our case, it means that people have no say.
“They have no personal or direct experience of what we are talking about.”
But lawyers for the Candy Bar and Westminster took the unusual step to join sides and argue against any involvement of residents.
David Matthias, the barrister appearing for Westminster, warned if Judge Purdy allowed objectors to appear, courts could be swamped.
He said: “You could have seven different respondents with seven representatives.”
And towards Judge Purdy he said: “You have no jurisdiction in this court, you must follow the working.”
The judge said: “There is nothing in the legislation that says they (people) cannot (appear) and logic suggests that if they can make representation in the earlier stage why should they not make representation here.”
The council’s stance against the residents was heavily criticised last night.
Conservative West End ward councillor Ian Wilder said: “When I heard that the council was going to oppose us I thought I was dreaming.
“It is a huge piece of people’s rights and to find we are fighting the council beggars belief.”
And Cllr Paul Dimoldenberg, the leader of the Labour opposition group yesterday wrote to the council’s director of legal services, Colin Wilson demanding to know how much money had been spent by City Hall campaigning against the residents’ case.
He wrote: “Please can you explain why the council is using taxpayers’ money to oppose the right of taxpayers to be heard at appeals?
“What is the point of the council’s opposition?”
A Westminster press official said: “The council fully intends to let residents have their say at appeals hearings as the act permits.
“All written representations made at the time of the initial application will also be available to magistrates.”
Judge Purdy adjoined until November 11 when he will give his ruling.