Banning people from pubs: a non-justiciable decision? asks Neil Parpworth
The recent decision in R (on the application of Proud) v Buckingham Pubwatch Scheme [2008] EWHC 2224 (Admin) addressed an important practical point; whether a person who had been banned from public houses in an area by local publicans was able to challenge the lawfulness of that decision in public law proceedings.
The facts
Buckingham Pubwatch Scheme (the scheme) is a group of publicans in the Buckinghamshire area. In March 2008, in the light of an incident which had occurred outside a public house, a decision was taken to ban the claimant from their pubs for life. Subsequently that decision was altered to a ban for a period of three years. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. Permission to apply for review was originally refused by Mr Justice Simon. The claimant therefore submitted a renewed application which was heard by a deputy high court judge. The defendant, the scheme, did not appear before the court. Instead, its chairman was represented as an interested party.
The principal issue to be determined by the court
