NSW Police v Di Francesco [2016] NSWLC 21

NSW Police v Di Francesco [2016] NSWLC 21

Mr Croker's speech, balance and co-ordination were noticeably affected by liquor, as shown by police observations and CCTV evidence of swaying, stumbling, spilling drinks, slurred speech, fumbling, confusion and difficulty opening a window. A hypothetical reasonable observer in the position of the hotel staff and licensee would have observed those signs, given staff interactions with Mr Croker and his visibility near the bar. The licensee therefore permitted intoxication, and failed to prove the statutory defence because the evidence did not establish compliance with all steps in the Secretary's guidelines, particularly planning and staff training requirements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution Under S 73 of the Liquor Act 2007 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Offence proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Topics
['permitting Intoxication on Licensed Premises' 'meaning of Intoxicated' 'meaning of Permit' 'statutory Defence Under S 73(4) of the Liquor Act 2007 (nsw)' 'responsible Service of Alcohol']
['criminal Law' 'liquor Licensing'] ['permitting Intoxication on Licensed Premises' 'meaning of Intoxicated' 'meaning of Permit' 'statutory Defence Under S 73(4) of the Liquor Act 2007 (nsw)' 'responsible Service of Alcohol']

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 Under S 73 of the Liquor Act 2007 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Croker was intoxicated as defined in the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW).' 'Whether the licensee permitted intoxication on the licensed premises.' 'Whether permitting intoxication required knowledge by the licensee or staff.' "Whether the licensee proved the statutory defence by taking all steps set out in the Secretary's guidelines under s 73(5A)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Croker's speech, balance and co-ordination were noticeably affected by liquor, as shown by police observations and CCTV evidence of swaying, stumbling, spilling drinks, slurred speech, fumbling, confusion and difficulty opening a window. A hypothetical reasonable observer in the position of the hotel staff and licensee would have observed those signs, given staff interactions with Mr Croker and his visibility near the bar. The licensee therefore permitted intoxication, and failed to prove the statutory defence because the evidence did not establish compliance with all steps in the Secretary's guidelines, particularly planning and staff training requirements.

Court Disposition

Offence proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders

  • []