Akin v Stratford Magistrates Court

J U D G M E N T

LORD JUSTICE BEATSON: This application for judicial review is brought by the claimant, Yasar Akin, trading as Efes Snooker Club on the Stoke Newington Road. He challenges the decision of District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) Radway dated 7 August 2013, the District Judge dismissed an appeal by Mr Akin on procedural grounds against the revocation on 5 February 2013 by Hackney London Borough Council's licensing sub-committee of his premises licence.

The matter had come before the licensing sub-committee as a result of a notice dated 28 November 2012, by an officer of the Metropolitan Police, pursuant to Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 (" the 2003 Act ") seeking a review of the premises licence.

Mr Akin raised two procedural grounds in his appeal to the Stratford magistrates. The first, that there were two (rather than three) councillors present at the meeting of the licensing sub-committee has not been pursued in this application, after its dismissal by the District Judge. The second concerned regulation 39 of the Licensing Act 2003 Premises Licences, and Club Premises Certificate's Regulations 2005, statutory instrument 2005 number 42, which I will refer to as the "2005 regulations".

This provided that:

"39.[...] all notices referred to in regulation 38 [which I interpose is the notice requiring the advertisement of a review application such as this] shall state —

"(a)the address of the premises about which an application for a review has been made.

"(b)the dates between which interested parties and responsible authorities may make representations to the relevant licensing authority.

"(c)the grounds of the application for review.

"(d)the postal address and, where relevant, the worldwide web address where the register of the relevant licensing authority is kept and where and when the grounds for the review may be inspected;

"And

"(e)that it is an offence knowingly or recklessly to make a false statement in connection with an application and the maximum fine for which a person is liable on summary conviction for the offence.

This case is concerned with (c), the grounds of the application for review. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Akin that the licensing authority's notice advertising that there was to be a review was invalid because it did not contain the grounds of the application and thus did not comply with the requirements of regulation 39.

The District Judge rejected that submission and held that the notice was vali