Judge confirms right to ban patrons
A hotel patron who was banned from drinking at licensed premises in a far north Queensland town has failed in a Supreme Court bid to lift the embargo.
The case was considered important because there are a large number of areas in Queensland where publicans have agreed to ban troublemakers from their establishments en-masse.
The hearing before Justice Jim Henry was also seen as a test case for the rights of publicans and licensed club owners to ban patrons from their premises.
In November last year, the Normanton Liqour Accord banned Trevor James Owens from entering licensed premises in Normanton, which included the Albion Hotel, the Central Hotel, the Purple Pub and the Normanton Bowls Club.
Mr Owens went to the Supreme Court joining as respondents the Accord, the Queensland Police Service, Office of Liqour and Gaming Regulation, the Carpenteria Shire Council, the Lamberr Wungarch Justice Group and the licensees of four premises.
Justice Henry was asked to look at such areas as whether a "liqour accord" purported to ban Mr Owens or whether the decision was one of each publican.
He was also asked to consider whether publicans had a common law right to refuse entry to licensed premises.
In a written judgment which became available Monday, Justice Henry said "The Normanton Liquor Accord" was the title of a document containing an agreement between some members of the Normanton community who took "a proactive approach to community alcohol related issues".
Its aim was to reduce alcohol related incidents in and around licensed premises and within the wider Normanton community.
It also wanted to improve responsible service of alcohol requirements within the licensed premises of Normanton.
"Under a heading 'Commitment to fostering a stronger and safer community' the document imposes a schedule of banning patrons from licensed premises as a result of school truancy by their children or acts of violence including domestic violence by patrons," he wrote.
Justice Henry noted that any information about misbehaviour by Mr Owens did not relate to him when on licensed premises.
He said the facts only had to be stated to demonstrate that the decision-making process that purportedly banned Mr Owens did not give him natural justice.
"However, that is not seriously in issue in this application for the respondents contend the decision-making and the accord under which it occurred were of a character which ought not attract the intervention of the Court," Justice Henry said.
