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

johnboy 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!


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
62 Responses to OK for early teen girls to be drunk in clubs at 2am as long as they’re with an older man!
Filter
Order
Madame Workalot Madame Workalot 9:47 am 30 Jul 09

vg said :

“Without sounding personal vg”
“and is the sort of officer who the public are generally afraid of and who give the rest of the force a bad wrap.”

That sounds personal, but what would I know?

Lot of people making suppositions about what did or didn’t happen without having any idea other than there was a Court proceeding

But what would I know (I hope the last one doesn’t make you too afraid dvaey)

The Court proceeding in most cases should contain enough information about the incident for people to make a relatively informed decision. And vg, you’re in a difficult position because you may in fact know details about the case that could offer further insight, but you can’t disclose it. Unfortunately, that means you are essentially saying ‘you’re wrong, but I can’t tell you why’ which makes you sound like an arrogant prick.

Dvaey does have a point though – no-one is infallible, and even police can’t be expected to know every aspect of every law they are supposed to enforce off the top of their head. I didn’t think he was trying to insult you personally, but perhaps trying to gently point out that it’s ok to be wrong sometimes, and if you refuse to acknowledge this it may give others the perception that you are stubborn, arrogant and a bully. Which does not a nice police officer make.

But hey, what would I know? 🙂

Granny Granny 2:38 am 30 Jul 09

That’s a good point, vg. Hopefully she was taken to hospital and her parents contacted to collect her.

vg vg 8:57 pm 29 Jul 09

“Without sounding personal vg”
“and is the sort of officer who the public are generally afraid of and who give the rest of the force a bad wrap.”

That sounds personal, but what would I know?

Lot of people making suppositions about what did or didn’t happen without having any idea other than there was a Court proceeding

But what would I know (I hope the last one doesn’t make you too afraid dvaey)

dvaey dvaey 7:42 pm 29 Jul 09

@ #33 – vg

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

Actually no it doesn’t, but what would I know?

Without sounding personal vg, I have known far too many police officers who will swear that theyre blue in the face that some law or fact is true, even when its not. The simple ‘but what would i know’ comment, seems to insinuate that because youre an officer, you know 100% without fail, what the law is. Anyone who believes that, is fooling themselves, and is the sort of officer who the public are generally afraid of and who give the rest of the force a bad wrap.

I can only imagine if the police were responsible, they’d take the intoxicated girl to hospital, whether she was 13 or 33. I thought the laws for licenced premises clearly stated that a person under the age of 18 is NOT allowed in a certain area, whether escorted or not. How is the club not penalised for this, whether she was drinking or not she was still on licenced premises, one strict condition of that licence is the exclusion of underaged people from it.

j from the block j from the block 11:31 am 29 Jul 09

Will stand corrected, but think one of the reasons the gypsy closed, other than the macchiato legal fight was the fines incurred, firstly from underage folk coming through the back door, and then, once they locked the fire exit, breach of fire code

j from the block j from the block 11:24 am 29 Jul 09

layne said :

I’ve been to Bar 32 on a few occasions and the door has always been managed by a security guard from SilverFern security – who checks all the id’s etc. plus another member of security inside. Considering that their front of house/security is outscourced isn’t SilverFern to blame for letting this girl in??

If I hired and paid an outside company to check IDs on the door and they did this – i’d be pretty pissed.

The other problem, especially with clubs in the sydney building, is the back door factor.
It’s why the clubs rely not only on the door staff, but also on the floor staff and bartenders to keep an eye on things. If you are under 18 stop reading now, ok, hypothetically speaking, all clubs have an emergency fire exit, which is normally used to empty bins / load unload stock etc, this is normally not alarmed, and used by bar staff through out the night. If said door is not closed properly, or a punter from inside opens it for those out the back, underagers can get in.

johnboy johnboy 11:18 am 29 Jul 09

Sadly, and many have tried, you can’t actually outsource responsibilities.

But you can hire a smart lawyer to run rings around the ACT Government.

layne layne 11:13 am 29 Jul 09

I’ve been to Bar 32 on a few occasions and the door has always been managed by a security guard from SilverFern security – who checks all the id’s etc. plus another member of security inside. Considering that their front of house/security is outscourced isn’t SilverFern to blame for letting this girl in??

If I hired and paid an outside company to check IDs on the door and they did this – i’d be pretty pissed.

j from the block j from the block 10:14 am 29 Jul 09

Don’t know if the guys at bar32 have changed their blackboard that was in the front window or not yet, but seems like someone thought it was a good idea to leave it there on Saturday night.
They are looking for bar staff though……. Hmmmmmm

j from the block j from the block 9:48 am 29 Jul 09

The two weekends after this the liquor licencing guys came around to every club on the thursday friday and saturday nights. And for that couple of weeks most clubs (not all, some still got busted) took the rules very seriously (I did knock back a few people who were almost certainly overage, but had no ID, but who goes out without ID?).
Where I work we try our best to keep an eye on all punters, and check ID’s on the door with anyone we suspect being under age, and also bar staff check ID of anyone we think may be underage that may have got by the door unchecked.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy 9:44 am 29 Jul 09

Harsh, but funny.

Skidd Marx Skidd Marx 9:02 am 29 Jul 09

Storm in a teacup. Most of my leb mates have girlfriends way younger than that. They gittem young and brainwash em until the last of their self-esteem gets blown out the exhaust tip of the VL Turbo on high boost.

Pandy Pandy 7:28 am 29 Jul 09

+1 Granny

Granny Granny 2:14 am 29 Jul 09

If one of my daughters was found unconscious in a bar I would be absolutely livid if she was sent home with a 21 year old male just because he knew her name and a few details. I mean, what the hey?!

Responsible adult, my fat aunt! Somebody needs an IQ test and a good brain transplant. What were they thinking??

bd84 bd84 9:42 pm 28 Jul 09

IT’s mostly about the interpretation of the law, where it fell down was when the police allowed the

Skidbladnir said :

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.

You neglect Section 31 (6) which states:

As soon as practicable—
(a) if a caution is issued to a young person, or a young person is
charged with an offence against this Act—after the caution is
issued or the young person is charged; or
(b) in any other case—after the young person is delivered to a
police officer at a police station or taken by a police officer to a
police station;
the police officer must—
(c) release the young person; or
(d) arrange for the young person to be escorted to the young
person’s home; or
(e) arrange for a parent or guardian of the young person to come to
the police station to take charge of the young person.

The main problem here is that I believe the officers probably misinterpreted the definition of a “responsible adult”, but then I’m sure every officer doesn’t remember the law word for word. If that was the case she may not have been detained. Judging by what little information was released the 21 year old must have been able to provide her name, address and dob, in which case the police were right to release the person. Even if she was detained and cautioned, they still would have been within their rights to just release her, whether or not it was the best judgement calls is another story.

Pandy Pandy 9:41 pm 28 Jul 09

Well why don;t we have enough police/inspectors to do that?

I also believe that the crim element is overrated.

AndyC AndyC 9:32 pm 28 Jul 09

I’m sure it’s not the first bar to let in an under age person, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

I guess the police could target them all for “weaks on end”…..but I’m not sure who that would benefit. Except the crims who are knocking off houses in the subrubs when the police are chasing a few kiddies around Civic..

Auntyem Auntyem 9:28 pm 28 Jul 09

Pandy said :

The bar should be targetted by the police for weaks on end. It will scare the underage punters away. May even close the place down.

Love it – I’ve never seen a “weaks on end”…

Sorry Pandy – Couldn’t help myself 🙂

farnarkler farnarkler 9:26 pm 28 Jul 09

I doubt the police have the manpower to do that.

Pandy Pandy 9:12 pm 28 Jul 09

The bar should be targetted by the police for weaks on end. It will scare the underage punters away. May even close the place down.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site