Nick Hogan, former landlord of The Swan Hotel and Barristers Bar in Bolton, was found guilty of failing to prevent people from smoking in his pubs on four separate occasions.
He now faces a £10,000 bill after being told to pay £750 for each offence - a total of £3,000 - plus costs of £7,236.
Hogan, 48, is also the first person in the country to be found guilty after challenging the national ban in the courts.
Businesses that fail to prevent smoking can face fines of £2,500, and those caught smoking risk fixed penalty notices of £50.
Hogan appeared before Bolton Magistrates' Court yesterday to deny a total of nine charges - five of failing to prevent people from smoking in a public place, and four of obstructing Bolton council officers.
He told the court that he warned customers that they were breaking the law in a letter put out on tables.
No smoking signs were also displayed in the pub after the new legislation was introduced under the Health Act 2006 on 1 July last year.
But he did not actively enforce the ban, claiming it was customers' `right to choose'.
District Judge Tim Devas found Hogan guilty of four of the five counts of failing to prevent people from smoking. He was cleared of the obstruction charges.
Flagrant breach
Mr Devas said it a `flagrant breach', and it was Hogan's `positive duty' to prevent smoking.
He said: "It seems to me that the Act leaves no doubt that it is not sufficient for someone to merely give people a choice, and to tell them that what they do is their choice.
"The landlord took steps to inform his customers as to the law, but made it clear as to his stance. He did not take reasonable steps to cause persons smoking to stop."
Hogan, who represented himself in court, said that he would consider an appeal and vowed to enforce the ban in the pub he now runs in Chorley, Lancs.
He said: "I need to take time to reflect on the court's decisions, but it certainly is not the end of the matter. I am a little bit shell-shocked about the size of the fine and costs.
"I am disappointed. I still believe that this legislation is draconian, and I am sure that the fight against it will go on. This was not just about smoking. It was about people's rights."
The court heard how Hogan held a `mass light-up' in defiance of the ban on the day it came into force - claiming he `wanted his day in court'.
Environmental officers first visited the pub on 2 July but found no customers smoking.
David Travers, prosecuting, said Hogan was spoken to and said he understood the law, but did not believe in it.
Mr Travers said: "He wanted to make a stand."
The officers found letters on tables, which said: "The management and staff of The Swan believe you have the freedom to choose whether or not you wish to smoke. If you choose to smoke, it is entirely your responsibility."
An invitation
But Mr Travers called it `tantamount to an invitation' and said: "The letter is wholly inconsistent with the defendant taking reasonable steps to prevent smoking."
Hogan was visited again on 5, 6, 10, 17, and 19 July. Officers said they witnessed customers smoking each time.
The landlord also lit up once in front of them, Mr Travers said.
Hogan refused the offer of a written warning, and declined an offer to discuss the situation with the council.
Barry Whitehead, principal environmental health officer, said: "He just said that he wanted his day in court."
Legal proceedings were then issued.
Mr Devas found him not guilty of obstructing officers, saying his `polite requests' for them to leave did not amount to obstruction.
He was also cleared of failing to prevent smoking on 10 July, because he was not there.
Bolton Council welcomed the ruling.
A spokesman said: "We are pleased that this situation has been resolved, and we will continue to enforce the smoking legislation in Bolton. It is unfortunate that this action was necessary, but we did everything possible to try and resolve the issue with Mr Hogan prior to prosecution."
One pub landlord in Blackpool has already been fined after he admitted charges, and other cases are pending.
A pub landlord in Gloucestershire was cleared of a single charge last week after magistrates accepted that he had asked his girlfriend to go upstairs immediately after she lit up a cigarette in the pub.
What do you think? Have your say.
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
460
275
M_B9PQFXkxs
false
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
ace, manchester (28/01/2008 at 19:55)
didarunna2spain, Tarragona Spain. (28/01/2008 at 20:11)
Stick at it son because,here in Spain,bar owners can choose to be smoking or non-smoking! Go for the Human Rights as both countries are in the EEC,so why different rules?
RANDYRED, rochdale (28/01/2008 at 20:16)
Birdy, Ireland (28/01/2008 at 21:26)
There's talk now of trying to ban people smoking in cars that contain Under 16's, children basically, as the confined nature of a car concentrates the ill effects of the smoke. This will no doubt be controversial but i look forward to hearing people defend their right to make their kids breath in their second cancer inducing smoke.
As regards this fine, it took similar fines here for the law to be inforced. This guy may feel it was harsh but before the smoking ban, if someone had lit up a joint would he merely have advised the customer that it was their choice whether to continue smoking it or not? I dont think so. It may take a few scapegoats to ensure compliance but so be it
mulluski9, cambridgeshire (28/01/2008 at 21:56)
8th August 2006 the HSE in their document OC 255/15 article9 state
" HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases".
What is happening with all those illegal donations given to the Government, seems like Nick has been hounded more than them.
Just the workers it seems land up in court quicker than MPs then. That would be about right for this Country and it's injustice.
It should be the government paying compensation for forcing those in business to LOSE money or their pubs.
freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike who think this ban is wrong - help us to fight it
Anthony B, COLWYN BAY (28/01/2008 at 22:37)
Greg Burrows, Dewsbury (29/01/2008 at 00:59)
Nick presented his defence better than most laymen, the judge commented on his ability at this first lesson Nick has had in law, I believe on a case where the council have employed a quality lawyer, the defendant should also be able to have a quality Lawyer, and if Nick goes to appeal the costs could spiral.
What ever the rights and wrongs of this case, it seems to be impossible to take the council on, (unless you have many thousand's of pounds spare), which deprives the majority of a fair legal hearing.
And £10,000 pounds for a few people smoking, if they had been shooting heroin, or taking crack he would not have had to pay this amount.This is not justice!
sallyh (29/01/2008 at 05:23)
Mr Angry, Bury (29/01/2008 at 08:49)
I totally support the landlord and think that the smoking ban should be abolished
PS I don't smoke
jacko101 (29/01/2008 at 08:52)
And don't even get me started on Spain, they wouldn't follow EU rules in any event.
mulluski9, don't talk rubbish. Second hand smoke is a big killer and has been proved. Smoking kills, it stinks and it costs the earth, why do you bother?
Anthony B, what's so big and clever about what he has done, except landed himself with a big fat fine?
sallyh, please explain how this 'choice' thing would work. I go to a pub and I choose not to smoke. Someone else in the pub chooses to smoke. Who wins? My choice effects no one else, the person choosing to smoke effects other people around them. So how can that persons choice be fair?
Oh and have you noticed now that pubs don't stink? They don't smell at all and it's great. And I don't stink of smoke when I leave the pub, I don't get up in the morning and stink of smoke, my clothes don't stink of smoke and my throat isn't sore from having to put up with smoke.
So, even forgetting that smoking kills you, it stinks.
alvinlwh (29/01/2008 at 09:20)
jacko101 (29/01/2008 at 09:26)
I think that just says it all about the quality of pubs you must go in! If you go in any decent pub, they smell fine. Much better than they used to.
EricH, Horwich (29/01/2008 at 09:26)
cllr.pat karney (29/01/2008 at 09:29)
NoBanJan, Manchester (29/01/2008 at 09:30)
Bomber Harris, In Exile.West Germany (29/01/2008 at 09:37)
jacko101 (29/01/2008 at 09:37)
I don't want to smoke, so where's my choice? Oh, don't tell me, I have a choice not to go to the pub. Yeah, that's a fair and un-selfish argument.
Mr Angry, Bury (29/01/2008 at 09:47)
The Bobelesque (29/01/2008 at 09:52)
ja00005 (29/01/2008 at 09:54)
ace, manchester (29/01/2008 at 10:30)
Well said that man.
Mr Angry, Bury (29/01/2008 at 10:30)
Opposition will not be tolerated. where next, officials dressed in black demanding "where are your papers"?
Princess_Pam, Crumpsall (29/01/2008 at 10:44)
If you go to casualty any weekend, you'll find them full of people who have drink related injuries - far more than those with smoking related illnesses. But will they ban pubs? No, they are for the anti-smoking fascists now.
Karney and others should keep out of our lives and remember - THEY WORK FOR US. But Labour has forgotten the meaning of Labour. If you are working class and have very little in life, to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces is an attack on the working class. In Manchester, the majority of adults smoke. Don't be conned by the figures showing a minority - that's only so when they take children into their figures.
We need a well publicised pro smoking day where people ignore the law and smoke in pubs, clubs, and on our public transport in defiance of those fat cat politicians. Stand up for your rights and to hell with dictatorship
jacko101 (29/01/2008 at 10:56)
Yeah, ignore the kids, let them breathe your smoke and kill them too.........
What is it with you that you don't understand. What about my choice and my right not to smoke?
I see no one has answered that as you can't. Smoking kills.
Your points about cars and drink and other issues are important for us to look at, but they are separate from this argument.
Jay (29/01/2008 at 10:56)
This new law will not ensure that young people grow up in a smoke free world. Smoking can't be eradicated because the State wishes it so. The illegal status of and society's disapproval of certain drugs have failed to eradicate their use.
Fourteen deaths per day in Greater Manchester from smoking related diseases? Perhaps you could explain how a death comes to be classified as a smoking related death? Furthermore, this law was not enacted to save smokers' lives but the health of non-smokers and its premise, that ETS damages health, is spurious as there is absolutely no compelling evidence that this is the case. Indeed the scientific community is expressing concern at the disrepute into which the ETS studies are bringing epidemiological research.