As licensing regulations and their enforcement face the spotlight in NSW, the front line of the defence speaks of wasted resources and an “attitude test” applied to publicans.
Speaking with PubTIC, specialist lawyer to the hospitality industry, David Sylvester of Sylvester & Browne Lawyers, relayed accounts of venues being unduly targeted for questioning police.
“Many of our clients from all over Sydney have related similar stories whereby licensing police march into pubs and bars like the Gestapo and speak to licensees and managers as though they are criminals.
“My clients often tell me that officers are quick to reject any responses, feedback or queries and simply state ‘the law is the law so deal with it’.”
Both NSW Police and OLGR cite the priority of developing a healthy working relationship with the hospitality industry to address issues, but Sylvester says it seems some officers “didn’t get the memo”.
“Unfortunately, the definition of working together and fostering a good working relationship more often than not involves the big stick approach by police and the OLGR,” continued Sylvester.
“What has eventuated is a situation whereby venues in the city and Kings Cross areas are being commercially strangled by the regulatory requirements, and as a result, the few businesses that remain trading are down as much as 50 per cent in turnover. These decreases are simply unsustainable.
“In my opinion, the police and some OLGR officers need to learn how to speak to business owners and approach reform in a collaborative manner.”
From his vantage point as their legal counsel, Sylvester says it should be recognised many of the goals of licensees and authorities are in fact the same.
“Surely the regulatory authorities understand that the last thing licensees/publicans want in and around their venues is violence or other criminal activity.
“They simply want to be able to conduct their business lawfully without fearing an over the top Elliot Ness-type of approach by police and other regulators.”
Case Examples.
(Names have been omitted to protect the innocent.)
Pub in Darlinghurst, 2009-2015
A publican and his wife that have owned and operated the pub for 25 years with zero history of non-compliance questioned a new licensing sergeant about the increased frequency of inspections. Told they “don’t have the right attitude”.
The following weeks saw police attempt to implement glass restrictions without supporting evidence. The owners fought the restriction through ILGA and won.
A breach then received for allowing intoxication. The owners fought matter and won. OLGR officers had not spoken to the supposedly intoxicated person and the Magistrate was highly critical of their methods.
Police then breach the pub for failure to comply with a Council DA, although not normally a police matter. The case was withdrawn by police on the day of hearing, but the Magistrate awards $10k in costs to the pub.
Police threaten to close the venue due to injury to an unknown person in a fight, again telling publican he has the “wrong attitude”. Subsequent investigation revealed through CCTV incident did not in fact take place and the case is dropped.
Pub in Erina, 2014
Licensee told by licensing sergeant to “pull his head in … he has a bad attitude”. This followed a question on how an incident that took place outside would be recorded and potentially attributed to the pub.
Several weeks later, two males are refused entry and walk off, immediately causing trouble with approaching patrons. Security intervenes and an altercation ensues. The manager provides CCTV footage to police, and instructs security to provide statements.
A junior officer is later sent to breach the pub for not recording the matter in its official incident book – despite this not being required as the persons involved were not in the hotel.
The licensee challenged the breach. Police prosecutors withdrew the charge upon realising it would fail, but costs were awarded to the licensee.
Nightclub on Oxford Street, 2015
An operations manager questioned a police licensing officer regarding a potential breach, and was deemed by that officer to “have a bad attitude”.
The venues subsequently received a barrage of inspections, identifying a breach relating to an alleged illegal drinks promotion on social media.
It was within police discretion to issue a warning on the relatively minor matter, but the far more serious action of commencing court proceedings was taken.
A conviction would mean a Strike, and the implementation of various other harsh conditions on the venue already heavily affected by the lockout laws, making it even more difficult to trade profitably.
Fearing further and continued harassment by police, the licensee sold the business a few months later. The venue has remained closed since.
Do you have a similar story?
Send it to admin@pubtic.com.au
