Advertisement

OK for early teen girls to be drunk in clubs at 2am as long as they’re with an older man!

By 29 July 2009 62

[First filed: July 28, 2009 @ 11:37]


View Larger Map

The Canberra Times brings the amazing news that the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal has dramatically expanded the possible scope of operations for Canberra’s night clubs.

Late in May we all thrilled to the outrage of a 13 year old girl found drunk and unconscious in Bar 32 at 2am by the police.

But the ACAT has found that because a 21 year old bloke offered to take her home she was in the care of a responsible adult and thus there was no breach.

    After an application by barrister Shane Gill for the venue, Tribunal President Linda Crebbin conceded licensing authorities had failed to prove the girl was not in the care of a responsible adult.

    ”We will, very reluctantly, given the extraordinary circumstances where a 13-year-old girl was on these premises at that time of the night, accept Mr Gill’s submission and the application is dismissed,” Ms Crebbin said.

Civic’s going to get even more exciting once the repercussions of this one shake out.

And sucks to be a teenage boy!

Please login to post your comments
62 Responses to
OK for early teen girls to be drunk in clubs at 2am as long as they’re with an older man!
AG Canberra 11:43 am
28 Jul 09
#1

So no actual law was broken with a 13 year old being passed out inside a licenced premises (adult or no adult being present)….I reckon we might need to amend our laws.

Nosey 11:55 am
28 Jul 09
#2

I look forward to taking my three kids to get shit faced in town while I soberly watch.

I will have to break some sort of law to get them the grog they will require but from this precedent, I will get off.

Sweet times.

Ms Crebbin is retarded.

Creekgirl 12:04 pm
28 Jul 09
#3

What sort of person thinks that a 21 year old man who says he says he knows the 13 year old drunk girl is a “responsible adult”. I would not consider allowing her to get so drunk that she passes out responsible.

Also, how did the officers know that the 21 year old was telling the truth? Does someone have more details about this. He could have just seen an opportunity for rape. Just because he know her name doesn’t mean he had altruistic intentions.

FC 12:17 pm
28 Jul 09
#4

This raises some interesting points. what counts as a ‘responsible adult.’ Some of these laws are odd and can be open for interpretation. I remember being at the supermarket and purchasing some items with a younger neighbour. I bought a bottle of vodka (along with many other food items) and the man asked for my ID. I showed him my ID. All pretty standard. He then asked for my neighbours ID. I queried “His school ID? He’s not 18″ and the man said he needed us both to be able to provide ID for him to be able to sell me the liquer. I found this quite odd, as, if I was with a 10 year old, then this request is not made. My neighbour had also been with his father many a time when he had purchased a case of beer from this same supermarket. So becuase I appeared to be still “youngish” somehow I am automatically suspicious or not classed as a ‘responsible adult’ although clearly the state, in allowing me to purchase the grog in the first place, regards me as one.
I ended up leaving with the alchohol – but only because I debated with the clerk, and then the manager, and was in no mood to be stuffed around (I believe I was running late).
Another time I drove my sister in law to the store to buy a case of beer, and after a short while I realised she might have difficulty carrying the case (she is very petite) I left the car and went to the store to carry it for her. The clerk then asked me for ID as I went to pick up the case for her. My ID was in the car, she had already paid for the beer, so I ignored his request but it seems as though these licencing laws can be interpreted many ways.
In ways that restrict, and ways that allow.

Clown Killer 12:18 pm
28 Jul 09
#5

So the Office of Regulatory Services failed to prove the venue had committed a breach of its licence and the complaint was dismissed after the commissioner’s office failed to prove its case despite being given a second chance to cross-examine witnesses – and that makes Ms Crebbin a retard? Yeah right.

johnboy 12:20 pm
28 Jul 09
#6

I do being to wonder if the ACT Government doesn’t need to start paying for better lawyers.

We never seem to win when it’s contested.

Mr Evil 12:40 pm
28 Jul 09
#7

Well, lucky she had a responsible adult with her, as it could have been worse – she could have woken up sandwiched between two sweaty, grunting older males in a toilet cubicle!

j from the block 12:41 pm
28 Jul 09
#8

Drawing a pretty long bow if you ask me.
Kids running around in a family friendly pub on an afternoon eg before 6 whilst there parents are still in a decent amount of sobriety, ok, in my opinion.
Only way I think this could be argued rationally (admitting its already done) was that the 21 year old was a family friend / well known in a plutonic way to the girl trying to remove her from the club.
“Oh no, there’s my best mates younger sister, I better take her home so she is safe”.
Under 18′s should not be out in clubs in civic.
As a bartender, its just far too hard to police, and far to risky for the venue, although, seems not in this case.

j from the block 12:46 pm
28 Jul 09
#9

Mr Evil said :

Well, lucky she had a responsible adult with her, as it could have been worse – she could have woken up sandwiched between two sweaty, grunting older males in a toilet cubicle!

my two kids approaching 18 are one of the reasons I got back into bars, to hopefully avoid them landing in those situations.

ant 12:47 pm
28 Jul 09
#10

What was a 13 year old girl doing out at that time of night? Does she have parents? The 21 year old male might well have been doing the right thing, but who is raising these kids?

johnboy 12:49 pm
28 Jul 09
#11

ant said :

What was a 13 year old girl doing out at that time of night? Does she have parents? The 21 year old male might well have been doing the right thing, but who is raising these kids?

Did you read the article ant?

j from the block 12:52 pm
28 Jul 09
#12

There is large number of clearly underage kids who roam around on Friday and Saturday nights in Civic. Some try to get into clubs before security gets on the door and stay inside, getting others to buy their drinks, some get all dressed up, and can definitely pass for 18, and walk around looking for a door man or woman who will assume rather than check ID.

Inappropriate 12:52 pm
28 Jul 09
#13

So the advice for teens is: make sure somebody knows your name is can make up a credible story.

j from the block 12:56 pm
28 Jul 09
#14

johnboy said :

ant said :

What was a 13 year old girl doing out at that time of night? Does she have parents? The 21 year old male might well have been doing the right thing, but who is raising these kids?

Did you read the article ant?

As much as sometimes some parents of teenagers wish it, you still can’t lock them up. Something about laws, human rights, basements in Austria………

Thumper 12:56 pm
28 Jul 09
#15

I bought a bottle of vodka (along with many other food items) and the man asked for my ID. I showed him my ID. All pretty standard. He then asked for my neighbours ID. I queried “His school ID? He’s not 18? and the man said he needed us both to be able to provide ID for him to be able to sell me the liquer

Happened to me with a bottle of scotch and my 16 year old son in tow once. I just stared increduously at the 14-15 year old said, ‘You are kiddng right? Manager. Now.’

Clearly she didn’t understand me. So I remained in the line and said it again, louder, so that the people lining up behind me could hear what the hold up was.

End of story, manager came in, gave me some rubbish spiel about something to which I simply said. ‘He’s my son, not yours. Your superior please.’ He got very flustered, especially when I offered him my phone to call his superior and finally allowed me to buy my scotch, but, ‘only this time’.

Wankers.

But yes, a seemingly simply black and white law can obviously be misinterpreted by some.

And as Mr Evil pointed out, the outcome could have been so very much different.

Overheard 1:00 pm
28 Jul 09
#16

My daughter turns 14 in a couple of weeks.

I might bring her to town and we can go clubbing.

vg 1:02 pm
28 Jul 09
#17

Creekgirl said :

What sort of person thinks that a 21 year old man who says he says he knows the 13 year old drunk girl is a “responsible adult”. I would not consider allowing her to get so drunk that she passes out responsible.

Also, how did the officers know that the 21 year old was telling the truth? Does someone have more details about this. He could have just seen an opportunity for rape. Just because he know her name doesn’t mean he had altruistic intentions.

The ‘officers’ didn’t believe him. That’s why it ended up at a tribunal

vg 1:02 pm
28 Jul 09
#18

johnboy said :

I do being to wonder if the ACT Government doesn’t need to start paying for better lawyers.

We never seem to win when it’s contested.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys unfortunately

Skidbladnir 1:02 pm
28 Jul 09
#19

Girl’s mother gives name and accurate description to ORS that she’s successfully getting into nightclubs and drinking alcohol on premises, one month prior to sweep.
Police enter licensed premises conducting sweep with liquor licensing inspectors, and discover 13 year old girl matching description from girl’s mother (a responsible adult, as outlined withing the Act’s definitions).
She clearly breaches Section 156 of the Liquor Act 1975.
Police remove girl from premises.
Girl does not provide name (contravenes requirements of Liquor Act 1975 Section 30, subsections 2 and 3).
Police should follow procedure outlined within the Liquor Act 1975 Section 30.

LIQUOR ACT 1975 – SECT 30
People under 18—powers of inspectors and police officers

If—
(a) an inspector or police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person (the young person ) has done or is doing anything that—
(i) would constitute an offence against section 154 or section 156 if the young person were under 18 years old;
the inspector or officer may—
(c) …require the young person to give his or her name, address and age to the inspector or officer;…
(d) if—
(i) the young person refuses to give his or her name, address or age; or
(ii) the inspector or officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the young person has not given his or her correct name, address or age; or
(iii) the inspector or officer is not satisfied that the young person is 18 years old or older;
apprehend the young person using reasonable and necessary force.

(7) If—

(a) a police officer apprehends a young person; or

(b) an inspector delivers a young person to a police officer who is not at a police station;
the officer must take the young person to a police station as soon as practicable.

…[Police were] approached by a 21-year-old man who said he was a friend of the girl’s and who claimed she was staying at a nearby apartment with his friend. [He] knew the girl’s name and said he should be allowed to take her.

Failure of basic law enforcement, right there.

As to weather or not the 21 year old was responsible, Responsible adult is defined throughout the Act as
“responsible adult”, for another person, means an adult who—
(a) – is a parent, step-parent, guardian, person acting in place of a parent, carer or domestic partner of the other person; and
(b) – could reasonably be expected to exercise responsible supervision of the other person. )

If she’s in a domestic relationship with a 21 year old or ‘his friend’ (since that person would fail parent, step-parent, legal guardian, person acting in place of the parent, carer clauses) thats more than a bit suspect.

I say our ACTCAT needs to go and reread their own damn laws.

ant 1:09 pm
28 Jul 09
#20

johnboy said :

Did you read the article ant?

The article on this page? Yes.

An article in some other media organ? No.

I’m reading this site, not some other site. Is Riot Act just a referral site for other publications?

And I re-iterate, there is great cause for concern that a kid is at large at 2am. If her parents can’t control her, there are options available. But I again question how the girl got to be like that in the first place.

Skidbladnir 1:10 pm
28 Jul 09
#21

Just to clarify, the police officers should have taken her away to the station, the law has no provisions allowing police to say “Some random guy put up a convincing argument, he knew her name.”, or “We always hand the passed-out drunk 13yo girls into the firm and loving embrace of 21 year old boys”.

vg 1:16 pm
28 Jul 09
#22

And you are 100% sure the girl wasn’t taken into custody at the rear of Bar 32? 100%?

j from the block 1:17 pm
28 Jul 09
#23

Ant, and I say this thinking my kids don’t read this, but the normal thing for me when younger (under 18) was the usual “I’m having a sleep over at X’s house” or if going to be home by 12, “I’m going with X to the movies”. Insert out in public underage silliness here. Yeah you can drop them off, pick them up, call ahead, sometimes, kids are tricky. Other times, parents are neglectful.
My personal view is at some point, be it at 13 (God I hope not), 16, or 18, they will be put in certain situations that I have tried to prepare them for, there will be alcohol, and certain people with out there best interests at heart. I do my best to provide them with what they need to deal in these situations and hope for the best.

Overheard 1:23 pm
28 Jul 09
#24

j from the block said :

Ant, and I say this thinking my kids don’t read this, but the normal thing for me when younger (under 18) was the usual “I’m having a sleep over at X’s house” or if going to be home by 12, “I’m going with X to the movies”. Insert out in public underage silliness here. Yeah you can drop them off, pick them up, call ahead, sometimes, kids are tricky. Other times, parents are neglectful.
My personal view is at some point, be it at 13 (God I hope not), 16, or 18, they will be put in certain situations that I have tried to prepare them for, there will be alcohol, and certain people with out there best interests at heart. I do my best to provide them with what they need to deal in these situations and hope for the best.

+1

I came back from many a ‘video night at a friend’s place’ (read: night at one of Canberra’s establishments which in the early 1980s turned a blind eye to obvious underagers) very much the worse for wear. My very conscientious and caring mother even rang in to work for me some Saturday mornings when I’d, ahem, eaten something that hadn’t agreed with me the night before at one of these ‘video nights’.

p1 1:30 pm
28 Jul 09
#25

Overheard said :

My daughter turns 14 in a couple of weeks.

I might bring her to town and we can go clubbing.

So fourteen is the age you let them out of the basement Overheard? :)

Overheard 1:37 pm
28 Jul 09
#26

p1 said :

Overheard said :

My daughter turns 14 in a couple of weeks.

I might bring her to town and we can go clubbing.

So fourteen is the age you let them out of the basement Overheard? :)

Ha! No basements involved, though a sturdy chicken coop keeps the boys (and the foxes) away.

Did anyone else see that report on TV recently (ABC? SBS?) where entry to a club somewhere was all done with implanted micro-chipping? No need for ID or cash: punters’ age verification and payment for drinks was all done through the swipe of an arm, referencing the implanted microchip.

Scary stuff.

Skidbladnir 1:38 pm
28 Jul 09
#27

Please vg, tell me what you can confirm, but hopefully you’re willing to provide references or reliable sources, as all you’re providing now is unfounded anonymous gossip. :P

ACT law enforcement appear substantially incompetent and judicary bodies at least impotent (or both) as things appear, but I am simply one of those pesky mortals (‘the public’) whose apparent interest the two bodies are meant to be acting in, making comment while only being able to consume media reports.
Never in any of them have they mentioned she was taken back to the sttaion, just that apparently she was in the care of a responsible adult and everything has since been smoothed over as a result.

If ACTCAT release the transcipt of proceedings which inicates she was taken into police custody at the station and that police knew what they were doing, I’ll withdraw and only have issues with ACTCAT.

Nosey 1:53 pm
28 Jul 09
#28

While I respect your opinion Skidbladnir, I call for VG to “let him have it”.

vg 2:21 pm
28 Jul 09
#29

Read the report, an ambulance was called.

The report also is covering the end part of the prosecution, ergo the prosecution was brought, at some point, by some enforcement body. If that body thought the person was responsible at the time of the incident there would have been no prosecution brought.

You can be taken into custody in ways other than being conveyed to a station. If the said girl had not been taken into some sort of custody at some point there would not have been a prosecution.

What do you think happened, they asked the 21yo a couple of questions, let the situation slide, then at some point had 2nd thoughts and decide to prosecute someone?

Skidbladnir 2:31 pm
28 Jul 09
#30

The law requires the station visit, not simple custody. :\

As to a “Do I really think?”, police responses are variable enough to have some good exceptionally good police attendances, some run-of-the-mill ones, and some amazingly bad ones.
Too many years of Stanhope have meant that when it comes to basic services, I go in without preconcieved notions of “It can’t be worse than X” when it comes to how low my opinion of ACT services will get, so assume the worst until proven otherwise.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.