INSPECTOR ADRIAN SHADBOLT- Tasmanian Police - Western District Support Services
This quarter I have asked an operational constable who has extensive experience in liquor licensing investigations to give his perspective of the current issues within the industry. I thought that this may be of more interest that simply an overview at a managerial level. Included in this article are some of the frequently heard excuses or explanations for common licensing offences. Tasmanian Police Update
One of the excuses that is often heard from licensees is, ‘If I didn’t sell alcohol to a person displaying any signs of intoxication, then I would never make any money’. This is often heard after police have spoken with said intoxicated patron, having staggered from a venue and is no longer able to stand properly or speak coherently. The parameters of “intoxicated” can be, to a limited degree, subjective. However, I think that many people may agree that the cases in which police are speaking to licensees are not the instances in which a patron has had only one drink too many. Whilst the financial benefits obtained from serving that one patron with a couple of extra beers may be attractive, I think the penalties incurred when police become involved may, in fact negate any advantage gained at the time. This, in turn, Leads into the explanations given by bar staff when confronted over these types of situations. Bar staff often state that due to their limited interactions with patrons, they find it hard to assess a patron’s level of intoxication. It is clearly the case that staff need to take time to observe the signs that a patron may be approaching a point where service needs be stopped. Time and time again police hear the old excuses of: ‘The bar was full and I was serving so many people!’; ‘I couldn’t smell liquor on their breath as the whole bar smells like alcohol’; ‘I couldn’t hear their slurred speech because of the noise of the nightclub’; ‘I didn’t see him swaying as he was leaning on the bar’. Whilst I will concede that it is hard to make these observations in prove that a patron appeared to be drunk to the seller. In order to successfully prosecute sellers and licensees, we need only prove that the patron was drunk.
In other news, I can report that a Hobart crowd controller had a charge of assaulting a patron proven before a Hobart magistrate. The crowd controller had kicked a patron’s legs out from under him and then lay on him for some time, until he was unconscious. Eventually an ambulance was called and attended the scene. The crowd controller told attending police that another patron had assaulted the victim, but recorded in the crowd control register that the patron had ‘…come at me so I put him down.’ Video of the incident from a surrounding venue showed the neither of these versions were in any way accurate. What was interesting in this case was that the victim did not want police intervention and had returned to South Africa soon thereafter. Because of the crowd controller occupying a position of trust and authority it was deemed appropriate to prosecute without his evidence. While his security licence was reinstated, after suspension, he can no longer perform the function of a crowd controller. Several other Hobart based crowd controllers are still to have their assault allegations determined in court. The message here is quite simple. Where Police receive complaints of excessive force by crowd controller, or we become aware of crowd controllers who routinely use excessive force, we will investigate the matters thoroughly. I trust that you all had an excellent festive season, and I wish you all the best for 2018.
February 2018 www.australianhotels.asn.au
23
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter