Pub football on TV case set to drag on

John Doyle, during his time as the landlord of The Queensfield pub, in Stratton John Doyle, during his time as the landlord of The Queensfield pub, in Stratton

A FORMER pub landlord being prosecuted for illegally showing a Premier League football match has spoken of his frustration as delays look set to drag the case on for two years.

John Doyle and his wife Mandy, who screened a Liverpool versus Tottenham game at the Queensfield, Stratton, in January 2010, have had their trial put back until January.

The couple have asked magistrates at previous proceedings to throw the proceedings out.

And they could even seek costs themselves for being wrongly prosecuted.

The delays have been caused by witnesses failing to show up and the courts waiting for an appeal to be lodged against a judgement in Cheshire that Media Protection Services, who act on behalf of the Premier League, cannot bring prosecutions in such cases.

Mr Doyle, 48, said: “Our lives are on hold. We’ve been told several times by the magistrates that the case will be chucked out if there is no progress at the next hearing, but it never happens.

“At the very least they should drop the case against my wife, as she wasn’t even the licensee, I was.

“I have been given the opportunity to run numerous pubs around the town, but I have had to say no.

“It’s been almost two years and the maximum penalty will be £750 compensation.”

Mr Doyle, from Penhill, said he was told the satellite decoding system was legal when he purchased it and he has a receipt from what he assumed was a reputable company based in the UK.

Mr Doyle, who has fallen back on his taxi service after losing the pub, said: “If the case in the high court finds that landlords should not be prosecuted there will be a lot of people putting in appeals.

“As far as we are concerned though this should have been chucked out a long time ago.

“If it was the CPS or the police bringing the prosecution it would have happened. “In the meantime we have been stopped from progressing our lives. We feel it’s David versus Goliath.”

Mrs Doyle’s solicitor Mike Pulsford, of Jeary And Lewis, said a district judge in Cheshire had ruled that MPS had no lawful authority to bring a prosecution in an identical case.

MPS is seeking permission to appeal the judgement in the Supreme Court. But Mr Pulsford has argued the proceedings against the couple were void from the start – a legal term known as ab initio.

And they could make a claim for costs for being prosecuted by a company which is not an injured party and does not have the same legal authority as bodies like the RSPCA.

He said: “Mr and Mrs Doyle have waited almost two years for their trial.

“I have written to the court on behalf of Mrs Doyle advising that the proceedings were void ab initio. “MPS has yet to receive permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“In the meantime, the Doyles have lost their pub. “I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr Doyle, who has had to represent himself in proceedings which should have been withdrawn a long time ago.”

MPS did not respond to a request for comment.

Comments(7)

RichardR1 says...
7:22pm Thu 18 Oct 12

MPS wouldn't respond probably because they had been relieved of their roll by the Premier League on the 30th August.

The PL have accepted the court judgement so it would be odd if the Court of Appeal do consent.

In any event this case should be dropped based on the law as it stands involving MPS and because they no longer represent the Premier League.

itsamess3 says...
10:33am Sat 20 Oct 12

ROLL
Yet another boobyism.
All you have done is repeat what a well known and respected solicitor has said in the article.

RichardR1 says...
12:39pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Selective reading again I see, Master of all things, please indicate where in the article it says the FPL have stopped using MPS.

It doesn't it says; 'The delays have been caused by witnesses failing to show up and the courts waiting for an appeal to be lodged against a judgement in Cheshire that Media Protection Services, who act on behalf of the Premier League, cannot bring prosecutions in such cases.'

So 100% wrong again MI.

itsamess3 says...
5:17pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Read properly and you will find--there is already a decision that MPS cannot prosecute and the PL have accepted that judgement-hence no case to answer.
What has the Mechanics Institute to do with this?

RichardR1 says...
10:05am Sun 21 Oct 12

No I said the PL had accepted the judgement, not the article, wrong again.

Keep up the good work perhaps one day you will get something right.

MPS are going to appeal because it may well transpire that all MPS prosecutions will be rendered void, with a lot of compensation being paid.

Perhaps if you widened you reading matter from this and the Beano you would understand a little better.

itsamess3 says...
11:48am Sun 21 Oct 12

Quite simply the PL cannot prosecute as they wavered their rights to MPS--and MPS have been advised they have no right to prosecute--in simple terms the case is fatally flawed.

RichardR1 says...
9:22am Mon 22 Oct 12

Drrrrrrr, that's what I said. The PL can appoint another agent, this time probably a solicitor to handle their cases.

There is nothing to stop them revisiting those which are over turned based on the Leeds Judgement if ratified at the court of appeal. MPS could still provide the evidence, as the judgement was not based on it.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree