Licensed premises operate at the intersection of commerce, public safety and safeguarding. While licensees are rightly focused on complying with the Licensing Act 2003 — particularly preventing crime and disorder and public nuisance — these statutory duties sit alongside a wider common-law duty of care to customers and visitors.
This duty becomes especially acute when a person on the premises is clearly intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. In such circumstances, the instinctive response to simply eject the individual may not only be unsafe, but may actively undermine safeguarding responsibilities and expose the premises to legal and reputational risk.
The starting point: intoxication changes responsibility
The law is clear that a licensee must not permit the sale of alcohol to a person who is drunk, nor permit disorderly conduct. However, the law is equally clear — though less often discussed — that once a person is noticeably impaired, they are also more vulnerable.
Intoxication can significantly reduce a person’s ability to:
- Assess risk
- Protect themselves from harm
- Navigate public spaces safely
- Interact appropriately with others
When a premises admits members of the public, it assumes responsibility not just for what happens inside, but for foreseeable consequences of how individuals are managed on exit, particularly where vulnerability is obvious.

Why “just ejecting” can be unsafe
Removing someone who is drunk or drug-affected may appear appropriate from a disorder-management perspective, but immediate ejection without safeguarding consideration can create new risks, including:
- Collapse or injury once outside the controlled environment
- Exposure to traffic, weather or further substance misuse
- Becoming a victim (or perpetrator) of crime
- Medical emergencies going unnoticed
- Loss of support from friends who remain inside
In practice, many serious incidents involving intoxicated individuals occur after ejection, not during consumption. This is why responsible authorities increasingly scrutinise how intoxicated persons are managed — not merely whether they are removed.
The legal rationale: duty of care does not end at the door
Under common law, occupiers and businesses owe a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to those affected by their actions.
Where staff are aware (or should reasonably be aware) that:
- A person is intoxicated, and
- That intoxication creates a foreseeable risk of harm
then simply expelling that person without further consideration may be unreasonable.
The key legal question is not “Did we want them off site?”, but rather:
“What was reasonably foreseeable, and were reasonable steps taken to reduce the risk?”
This does not mean licensees must detain people indefinitely or act as carers — but it does mean that automatic ejection cannot be the default response where vulnerability is obvious.
Safeguarding as part of the Licensing Objectives
Safeguarding vulnerable persons is increasingly treated as part of:
- Public safety
- Prevention of crime and disorder
- Protection of children from harm (where relevant)
A visibly intoxicated adult may constitute a vulnerable person for safeguarding purposes. Licensing authorities, police and courts now expect premises to demonstrate proportional, humane and risk-aware responses.
This expectation is reflected in modern enforcement practice, reviews of licences, and scrutiny of incident logs following serious events.

What “reasonable steps” look like in practice
Safeguarding does not require perfection — it requires reasonable and proportionate action. Examples of good practice include:
- Pausing service and separating the individual from alcohol
- Engaging calmly and assessing their condition
- Ensuring they are with friends who can responsibly care for them
- Offering water, seating or time to recover
- Calling a taxi or safe transport where appropriate
- Contacting medical assistance if there is genuine concern
- Contacting the Street Pastors or similar if such support is available at your location
- Delaying ejection until the person is safer to leave
In higher-risk cases, particularly involving drugs, collapse or extreme intoxication, the correct response may be medical intervention rather than removal.
Balance, not blanket rules
Importantly, the duty of care does not prevent removal where it is necessary. Violent, threatening or persistently disorderly behaviour must quite rightly justify immediate ejection or police involvement.
The issue is balance:
- Is removal the safest option?
- Has vulnerability been considered?
- Are there steps that reduce risk before or after ejection?
A short delay to arrange transport or check welfare may be far more defensible than rapid ejection that exposes the individual to greater harm.
Why this matters for Licensees
Failing to consider safeguarding can have serious consequences:
- Licensing review applications
- Adverse findings following inquests or investigations
- Civil claims alleging negligence
- Reputational damage
- Criticism from responsible authorities
Conversely, premises that can demonstrate measured, welfare-focused decision-making are often viewed more favourably by regulators — even where incidents occur.
Conclusion: Safeguarding is not “soft” — it is Responsible Licensing
Managing intoxicated or drug-affected persons is one of the most challenging aspects of operating licensed premises. The answer is rarely binary. Simply ejecting someone does not always discharge your duty — and in some cases, it may heighten risk rather than reduce it.
A modern licensee’s duty of care means:
- Recognising vulnerability
- Anticipating foreseeable harm
- Taking reasonable steps to reduce risk
Safeguarding is not a barrier to enforcement. It is what responsible enforcement looks like in practice.
If you need anything to do with Alcohol Licensing, why not be like our other satisfied customers and drop us an email or give us a call on 01432 700 024?
Click here to arrange your FREE consultation at a time that suits you!









