A pub landlord who became the first person in the country to be jailed over the smoking ban has walked free from prison after a campaign raised £10,000 to secure his early release.
Nick Hogan, 43, the former landlord of The Swan and Barristers in Bradshawgate, Bolton, was jailed by magistrates for six months for failing to pay fines and costs totalling £10,136 after he was found guilty of allowing customers to light up in January 2008.
Hogan, who held a much publicised 'smoke-in' at the pub on the day the national ban came into force in 2007, has been serving his sentence at Forest Bank in Salford.
He walked free today - national non-smoking day - just 11 days into his sentence after the outstanding money – minus £1700 he had already paid - was handed over to the prison in cash and then authorised by the courts.
The £8,445.15 sum was hand delivered to the prison in a silver briefcase by an internet political blogger calling himself Old Holborn.
Wearing a mask he walked into the prison in Pendlebury and personally delivered the briefcase to bemused staff.
The funds were raised following a series of internet campaigns. Accounts were set up for people to make online donations.
Outside the prison Hogan revealed that the first thing prison staff gave him was tobacco, matches and rolling papers.
Devastated
He said: “I was devastated to be sent to jail. The smoking ban has cost me my pub, my job and my liberty.
“I’d like to thank everyone who donated money to get me out of jail and all the well-wishers who sent cards and letters.
“It’s wonderful to know that so many people feel as strongly as I do about the smoking ban and its impact on ordinary working people.
“I do not regret a thing - not anything. I still stand here and believe that I’ve done the right thing.
“I just cannot believe what people have done for me. My views on the smoking ban have not changed. An old lady sent me £5 and a gentleman £25 to support the cause.”
Hogan celebrated his release by kissing and embracing his wife Denise - then lit up a cigarette.
He said: “I am going to have a fag and a bottle of Budweiser tonight. I was put in prison for smoking and the first thing that the authorities gave me was a roll of tobacco, matches and papers. You can smoke in your own cell here.”
The campaign to free Hogan, who has been declared bankrupt, was set up by French-based retired lawyer Anna Raccoon, a political blogger and commentator who wrote about his jailing. More than 1,000 web users also joined a group on Facebook.
Hogan was found guilty of failing to prevent people from smoking at the pub on four occasions in June 2007. He was the first licensee in Greater Manchester to be convicted under the new laws.
Hogan had placed letters on tables around the pub and bar informing customers of the ban and saying that the choice to smoke was theirs to make. A subsequent appeal against his conviction however failed.
Simon Clark, director of smokers’ lobby group Forest, met Hogan, who now lives and runs a bar in Chorley, as he walked free from jail.
He said: “We don’t condone people breaking the law but we do condemn the draconian nature of the anti-smoking legislation that has resulted in a previously law abiding man losing his business and going to jail. It’s a scandal that landlords are not allowed to offer customers the choice.”
Mr Clark said that currently pubs were closing at the rate of 39 a week.
Tweet
Landlord who defied smoking ban released from jail
March 10, 2010
The £8,445.15 sum was hand delivered to the prison in a silver briefcase by an internet political blogger calling himself Old Holborn.
The £8,445.15 sum was hand delivered to the prison in a silver briefcase by an internet political blogger calling himself Old Holborn.
1/2
Play Slideshow
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Almighty God, Salford - vote Green (10/03/2010 at 17:31)
Andanotherthing, Mcr (10/03/2010 at 17:31)
Free Smoker, Swinton (10/03/2010 at 17:40)
Portsmouth Blue (10/03/2010 at 18:11)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (10/03/2010 at 18:26)
Although that's only to drink alcohol and you are allowed in pubs under 18. May be it should be if only 18's are allowed in then the choice is for the landlord to make as to allow smokers.
smokerfordemocracy, UK (10/03/2010 at 18:26)
INTOLERANCE IS THE MOST PREVENTABLE CAUSE OF INEQUALITIES ( Remember that Deborah Arnott)
Pippa, Manchester (10/03/2010 at 18:55)
I also have a feeling, no doubt I'll be corrected if I am wrong,and called pedantic if I am right, but Mr Hogan was jailed for non-payment of fines not for defying the smoking ban.
Barking Spider (10/03/2010 at 18:57)
@Andanotherthing
"Why is a masked man allowed at a prison?"
He did have a brieffcase full of cash! ;-)
Besides, would you want to show your face to this government if you didn't have to?
arachne, The Web (10/03/2010 at 19:16)
Thomas Laprade (10/03/2010 at 19:21)
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling from sea to sea
has nothing to do with protecting people from the "threat of second-hand
smoke" but are themselves symptoms of a far more grievous threat: a
cancer that has been spreading for decades throughout the body politic,
reaching even the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the
only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace but rather, if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?
Should anti-smoking activists satisfy themselves with educating people
about the potential danger and allow them to make their own decisions,
or should they seize the power of government and force people to make
the “right” decision?
It seems they've made their choice. Loudly billed as measures that only
affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants,
bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices - places whose owners are free to set
anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't
like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers outdoors.
The decision to smoke or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, should be made by
each individual according to his own values and assessment of the risks.
This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of
their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or love, whether
to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All these decisions involve risks; some may have harmful consequences or
invite disapproval from others. But the individual must be free to make these
decisions because his life belongs to him, not to others, and only his own
judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are
a minority, practicing a habit often considered annoying and unpleasant to
the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of
government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than few stray whiffs of
tobacco smoke while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The
anti-smoking crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those tiny wisps while
they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.
Mike Brailsford, Blackpool (10/03/2010 at 19:46)
Not sure who is the bigger idiot him or any of those who donated money to fleece him from jail.
Mike Brailsford, Blackpool (10/03/2010 at 20:17)
What choice are you giving the person who doesn't want to breathe in your smoke ?
I often can't stand in a bus queue properly because people light up near you, I think that will still qualify as a public place.
Pubs close because people find there is little for them to do in there. You don't need to visit an establishment to do what you can do at home. The smoking ban is a convenient excuse.
tug wilson (10/03/2010 at 20:33)
Phillip Morris (10/03/2010 at 20:43)
Yeah right! So why was the mouthpiece of Big Tobacco front group FOREST there then. Methinks BigT paid the fine, behind the scenes pulling strings as usual.
english charlie, suffolk (10/03/2010 at 20:44)
Pam Parker (10/03/2010 at 20:52)
Pam Parker (10/03/2010 at 20:52)
Mike, Manchester (10/03/2010 at 22:13)
PW, Manchester (10/03/2010 at 22:52)
Helend (10/03/2010 at 23:26)
The speed at which his fund was raised (without main stream media attention) should be a warning to everyone.
His imprisonment was a step too far by this nanny state - the people have obviously spoken this time.
I applaud everyone for with their efforts, against all odds.
mandy vincent (10/03/2010 at 23:45)
It may be 34/35 yrs but it will never be 37yrs., Mossley (11/03/2010 at 00:21)
Another point this man was not sent to jail for letting people smoke in the pub he was sent there for non payment of fine but he should not of had his liberty took from him.....I hope the council ninnies are proud that they near ruined someones life.
Artisan (11/03/2010 at 01:18)
Russell E, Colombia (11/03/2010 at 06:58)
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (11/03/2010 at 08:33)
It used to annoy me big time when a restaurant had a none smoking area but if it was full, the none smokers would sit in the smoking area and then tut , wave their hands and make nasty comments towards people who were smoking in the smoking area, I used to say things like 'You chose to sit there knowingly so don't start with all that twitching' loud enough to embarass them. The best one I saw was an 80 year old ex seargent from WW2 we got to know arguing with a 60 year old none smoker who'd done just that.