Restaurant customers are entitled to 'eating-up time'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.RESTAURANT customers are entitled to eating-up time in the same way that customers in public houses have drinking-up time, two High Court judges decided yesterday.
Mr Justice Rougier, sitting with Lord Justice Watkins, ruled that magistrates erred in law when they convicted Anwar Amin, joint holder of a licence for the Dhaka tandoori restaurant, in Southampton, Hampshire, of staying open too late.
The city's magistrates fined him pounds 100 in June 1991 for contravening a condition of his late-night licence which prevented him from staying open between 3am and 5am.
Mr Amin admitted that about 30 people were still eating at 3.45am on a Sunday in November 1990, when two police officers arrived, but he said that diners were simply finishing their meals. And he argued that although the officers could get in through an unlocked door, it did not necessarily mean the restaurant was being kept open within the meaning of the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969.
Magistrates had decided that he was guilty of an offence because the officers could get into the restaurant without hindrance.
Allowing the appeal against the conviction, the judges said that if the magistrates' interpretation of the law was correct it would place restaurant owners in 'an impossible situation' and mean that all customers had to be out by closing time.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments