NSW Police v Mulley [2019] NSWLC 5

NSW Police v Mulley [2019] NSWLC 5

Mr Mulley was not guilty because the alleged indefinite hotel ban was not legally effective to remove consent to enter or remain on the licensed premises, there was implied consent to use the veranda as a thoroughfare, and there was no evidence that the licensee or another relevant person requested him to leave. The purported move-on direction was not lawful because it was given to enforce a supposed ban rather than on the statutory grounds required by section 198 of LEPRA, the evidence did not show relevant intoxicated or disorderly conduct, and the mandatory warning was not given.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Summary Offences / Defended Hearing at Forbes Local Court; Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Not guilty on all counts
Legal Topics
['unlawful Entry on Inclosed Lands' 'licensed Premises Banning Notice' 'move on Direction to Intoxicated Person' 'implied Consent to Use Hotel Veranda as Thoroughfare' "licensee's Power to Exclude Patrons"]
['criminal Law' 'police Powers' 'liquor Licensing' 'inclosed Lands'] ['unlawful Entry on Inclosed Lands' 'licensed Premises Banning Notice' 'move on Direction to Intoxicated Person' 'implied Consent to Use Hotel Veranda as Thoroughfare' "licensee's Power to Exclude Patrons"]

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Summary Offences / Defended Hearing at Forbes Local Court; Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the veranda of the Central Hotel was inclosed lands' 'Whether the veranda remained inclosed lands when the hotel was not open' 'Whether Mr Mulley was lawfully banned from entering the Central Hotel' 'Whether a licensee has a right to exclude a person from a hotel beyond those set out in the Liquor Act 2007' 'Whether police complied with the law when purportedly giving Mr Mulley an intoxicated person move-on direction']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Mulley was not guilty because the alleged indefinite hotel ban was not legally effective to remove consent to enter or remain on the licensed premises, there was implied consent to use the veranda as a thoroughfare, and there was no evidence that the licensee or another relevant person requested him to leave. The purported move-on direction was not lawful because it was given to enforce a supposed ban rather than on the statutory grounds required by section 198 of LEPRA, the evidence did not show relevant intoxicated or disorderly conduct, and the mandatory warning was not given.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on all counts

Orders

  • ['Mr Mulley found not guilty of all charges.' 'Each count marked "not guilty after hearing."']