Ruling blow for Herefordshire landlord who defied smoking ban (From Hereford Times)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting HT NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Tony Blows of the Old Dog Inn has £17,000 legal bill
1:00pm Thursday 19th March 2009 in News
Tony Blows
A GOLDEN Valley landlord who let customers light up in defiance of the smoking ban will have to pay a heavy price after a top judge’s ruling.
Tony Blows even enjoyed a cigarette himself in the bar room at the Old Dog Inn, but now faces fines and legal bills totalling almost £17,000 for his trouble.
Undercover trading standards officers kept covert watch in the Ewyas Harold pub in August 2007 after a member of the public complained that customers were smoking.
After a three-day trial before a district judge, Mr Blows was convicted in March last year of two counts of allowing his customers to smoke in what should have been a smoke-free zone.
He was also found guilty of smoking in the pub himself and was hit with a total £1,075 fine.
But Mr Blows suffered even more pain when he was ordered to pay £10,807 legal costs.
He challenged the costs at London’s High Court on Tuesday, claiming they were “grossly disproportionate” and accused Herefordshire Council of using heavy-handed surveillance tactics against him, more appropriate for dealing with terrorists.
However, the publican was sent packing by two top judges – and was ordered to pay another legal bill, this time for £5,000.
Barrister John Dyer, for Mr Blows, argued the £10,807 costs bill was “manifestly excessive”
and out of all proportion both to the fines imposed and the seriousness of the case.
The publican was subject to an Individual Voluntary Arrangement with his creditors at the time and simply did not have the money to pay the bill, he told the court.
Mr Dyer also argued that the “zealous” surveillance methods used by the council – using powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 – along with the scale of the prosecution were over the top.
However, dismissing his appeal, Mr Justice Tugendhat said it had been “reasonable and necessary” to prosecute Mr Blows and there was nothing disproportionate about the council’s handling of the case.
The exceptionally high legal costs of the prosecution were in part due to Mr Blow’s own detailed questioning of council witnesses and the raising of legal points that had no reasonable prospect of success, he added.
The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Richards, said the district judge had also found that Mr Blow’s evidence about his means was “incredible and unreliable”.
On top of the fines and legal costs he was ordered to pay by the district judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat ordered the legally aided publican to pay another £5,000 towards the costs of this week’s hearing.
Comments(17)
Davey078
says...
2:33pm Thu 19 Mar 09
handmyanphil
says...
3:21pm Thu 19 Mar 09
Having sat through the original charade that purported to be a court case i can only assume that courts no longer rely on hard evidence, prosecuted licensees are simply 'lambs to the slaughter' and EHO's are deemed to be GodsIf you consumed 5 pints of beer and then was breathalysed you would undoubtedly be found guilty, banned from driving and lumped up with a £500 fine. However, being an EHO, it is a slightly different scenario:- drink 5 pints, take no pictorial evidence, charge the licensee for the night out and then swear upon oath that people were smoking-even though under the influence!
The question remains (which the District Judge never asked!) how is a licensee, cooking meals in the secluded kitchen at the rear of the pub, supposed to see anyone smoking, especially through brick walls?
This law, as I've said before, is so tainted in favour of local councils it is corrupt.
Oh! and it seems not to matter that a prominent member of ASH mockingly makes threatening gestures toward a licensees wife during the process!
Nitro
says...
3:41pm Thu 19 Mar 09
There should not be a ban let alone a fine.
Do not forget that Labour are totally responsible for this stupid situation and the subsequent fines and costs that are related to smoking.
I suppose they need to raise some funds towards the billions of pounds wasted to date on anti smoking propaganda.
Belinda-1
says...
4:14pm Thu 19 Mar 09
You know when a government is being ridiculous when it imposes penalties in inverse proportion to the seriousness of the offence.
TheBigYin
says...
4:42pm Thu 19 Mar 09
Then how come Mr Blows was legally aided? Does the judge think that landlords are 'raking it in' and stashing their loot offshore in tax havens? Or is, as I suspect, the judge just another government lackey and a 'new' puritan health Nazi who colludes with the establishment to curry favour. Yes it's the law of the land, (for now) but justice it aint! We now live in a fascist state.
marma495
says...
5:11pm Thu 19 Mar 09
Jennifer Hunter
says...
5:17pm Thu 19 Mar 09
Nannyknowsbest
says...
6:55pm Thu 19 Mar 09
Who would have paid the costs had he been found not guilty? We would - that's who.The inference that, in some way he was supposed to be able to control this action whilst cooking in another room is, in fact, covered in the statute and is "a defence". The imposition of further costs at a hearing to challenge the initla costs is simply unlawful and, one would have though that the judges would have been aware of this. Neatly though, they have now sidelined the smoking issue and he is not being hounded for the costs - as the fine is irrelevant in the face of these. This is the justice of a banana republic not of a so called civilised country.It does not make clear if the initial guilty verdict was as the result of a jury decision or merely that of the judge. If it were the latter then, under English Law, such a judgement is unlawful and, by virtue of that, meaningless. One cannot pursue a case of illegality by unlawful means.
Regardless of the fine for the smoking and its relative merits or de-merits, the thing on trial here is the Judiciary versus English Law and, on balance, it is they who are in far greater breach than Tony Blows. This matter will not go away.
soapy
says...
8:55am Fri 20 Mar 09
If my Noble Lords of the justices permit this travesty of justice to continue then they are equally guilty under common law as their underlings who sit on the bench, their corrupt behaviour endangers the very checks and balances on the lower house for which they are in place. If my Lords are not willing to fulfill their function then the people will have little choice but to demand the disolution of the house of Lords and replace it with a system that will work as advertised.
mandyv
says...
12:17am Sat 21 Mar 09
Tony, I just do not know what to say to you, or your lovely wife.
They can smoke in the EU parliament and outside in the pubs ect. Why is there, one law for one and one law for another?
freedom2choose.info for smokers and non-smokers alike, fighting for CHOICE and TRUTH
Sue Jones
says...
3:53pm Sat 21 Mar 09
digitaldave
says...
4:09pm Wed 25 Mar 09
who cares where people are from, your inbred views give herefordshire a bad name, much the same as the smoking ban has killed the livelyhood of thousands across the UK, its not smart you dummy.
sorry about her people, as you can see herefordians like every other place has its fair share of idiots.
old guy
says...
8:21pm Wed 25 Mar 09
digitaldave
says...
11:58pm Wed 25 Mar 09
the no smoking thing is a farce, I dont smoke or work in pubs/clubs/etc but I do see the whining fools complaining about it are also the people not supporting these business's by going to the pub when the smoking ban come into affect.
the government have once again got this spectacularly wrong, at the worst time to screw things up in our lifetime, and you think thats a good thing? god, some people deserve to have nothing
digitaldave
says...
12:03am Thu 26 Mar 09
are you actually for real?
digitaldave
says...
12:10am Thu 26 Mar 09
for smoking?
i'm genuinely shocked that people this dim are still allowed to post crap on the internet, please get a clue before replying, taa
chas says...
1:24pm Thu 19 Mar 09