The Licensee
Northern Star Hotel
112 Beaumont Street
HAMILTON 2303
[email protected]
The Licensee
Gateway Hotel
Maitland Road
ISLINGTON 2296
[email protected]
[email protected]
The Licensee
Hamilton Station Hotel
226 Beaumont Street
ISLINGTON 2296
[email protected]
The Licensee
Kent Hotel
59-61 Beaumont Street
HAMILTON 2303
[email protected].
au
The Licensee
Exchange Hotel
125 Denison Street
HAMILTON 2303
[email protected]
The Licensee
Sydney Junction Hotel
8 Beaumont Street
HAMILTON 2303
[email protected]
[email protected]
By email, with confirmation by post
Cc: [email protected]
25 June 2012
Dear Sir/Madam
REASONS FOR DECISION UNDER SECTION 53(1)(b) OF THE LIQUOR ACT 2007 TO IMPOSE
CONDITIONS UPON THE LICENCES OF SIX LATE TRADING HOTELS IN THE HAMILTON
ENTERTAINMENT PRECINCT
BACKGROUND
1. I refer to the 11 licence conditions (“Review Conditions”) that were imposed by the Authority on
20 August 2010 (“Review Decision”) in the course of reviewing a decision made by a delegate of
the Director General on two disturbance complaints made by the Local Area Commander of Police
(“Police”) and a local resident (“Resident Complainant”), in relation to six late trading Hotels
located in the Hamilton entertainment precinct (“Affected Hotels”).
2. A copy of the Review Decision is annexed to this decision by way of background. The Review
Conditions that commenced effect on 27 August 2010 are set out at pages 2-5 of that document.
3. The Review Conditions were imposed for a period of 15 months from the date of the Review
Decision and expired on 20 November 2011. On 18 November 2011 the Authority imposed the
Conditions afresh, on an interim basis only, until such time as the Authority was able to determine
a proposal made by Police on 9 November 2011 (and supplemented with further submissions
dated 21 December 2011) that all the Review Conditions shall be imposed upon the licences of the
Affected Hotels on a “permanent” basis. Police suggested that in the alternative to imposing
Review Conditions numbered 2, 5(i) and 9 solely upon the licences of the Affected Hotels, these
measures could be imposed across the precinct through the Precinct Liquor Accord.
Level 6, 323 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 3970, Sydney NSW 2001 Tel +61 2 9995 0599 Fax +61 2 9211 0062
www.ilga.nsw.gov.au
ABN 42 496 653 361
(“the Police Proposal”).
NOTIFICATION OF DECISION
4. The Authority considered this matter at its ordinary monthly meetings of 22 February 2012 and 21
March 2012. On 27 March 2012, in the interests of expediting the notification of its decision, the
Authority issued a letter advising its decision in this matter.
5. On 30 March 2012, Mr Paul O’Sullivan, a solicitor for the licensee of the Northern Star and
Hamilton Station Hotels, requested that the Authority provide a more detailed statement of
reasons for its decision. In the light of the contentious history of this matter, the degree of public
interest and Authority’s Guideline No 7: Authority Decision Making and the Provision of Reasons
for Decision, the Authority advised Mr O’Sullivan on 4 April 2012 that it would prepare a statement
of reasons and release the same shortly after the Authority’s ordinary monthly meeting scheduled
for 29 May 2012. What follows is a statement of reasons for the Authority’s decision of 27 March
2012.
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
6. The Authority has carefully and critically examined the Police Proposal; a submission from the
NSW Police Association (the Police Union) dated 8 November 2011; a submission from the Hunter
New England Local Health District dated 9 November 2011; a submission from Mr Tony Brown
dated 9 November 2011 on behalf of the resident complainant; submissions from Mr Micah
Jenkins of Harris Wheeler solicitors on behalf of the Kent Hotel dated 15 November 2011 and 14
February 2012; submissions from Mr Paul O’Sullivan of O’Sullivan Saddington Solicitors dated 14
November 2011 and 13 February 2012; a submission from Mr Paul Norberry, licensee of the
Sydney Junction Hotel dated 30 January 2012; and a submission from Mr Stewart Smith, licensee
and owner of the Beaumont Exchange Hotel dated 13 February 2012. The Gateway Hotel made no
submission to the Authority.
THE NEW CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE AUTHORITY
7. Having turned its mind to the objects and statutory considerations provided by section 3 of the
Act, the Authority is satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for imposing, in the public interest,
the following conditions, consistently across the licences of all six of the Affected Hotels, pursuant
to the Authority’s power under section 53 (1) of the Act, with effect from 28 March 2012:
1. Plan of Management
The licensee will maintain the Plan of Management (Plan) for the licensed
premises, the contents of which were settled by the licensee with due regard to
and following reasonable consultation with the Local Area Commander of NSW
Police and lodged with the Director of Compliance Office of Liquor, Gaming and
Racing within 3 months of the Authority's review decision in relation to the
premises dated 20 August 2010. The licensee will lodge with the Director of
Compliance any amendment to this Plan within 14 days of making such
amendment.
2. RSA Monitor
–2–
On Friday and Saturday evenings from 11.00 pm until closure the licensee will
retain an employee or contractor whose sole function shall be to supervise and
monitor responsible service of alcohol practices at the bar and to observe the
responsible consumption of alcohol throughout the licensed premises.
3. Restricted service of alcohol from 10 pm
On Friday and Saturday evenings the following drinks must not be sold or supplied
on the licensed premises during the restricted service period:
i. any drink (commonly referred to as a "shot") that contains no more than 30ml of
spirits or liqueur and that is designed to be consumed rapidly,
ii. any drink containing more than 50% spirits or liqueur,
iii. any ready to drink beverage with an alcohol by volume content of more than
5%,
iv.any drink prepared on the premises that contains more than one 30ml nip of
spirits or liqueur.
During the restricted service period, no more than:
i. 4 alcoholic drinks (whether or not of the same kind), or
ii. the contents of one bottle of wine,
may be sold or supplied on the licensed premises to the same person at any time.
In this clause:
ready to drink beverage means an alcoholic mixed beverage that is prepared by
the manufacturer;
restricted service period in relation to the licensed premises, means the period
between 10.00 pm and such later time (if any) at which the licensed premises are
required to cease trading.
4. Orderly Precinct Strategy Requirements
The licensee is to implement the following "Orderly Precinct Strategy" requirements:
i. A person shall not be permitted entry to the licensed premises if it is known or
should be reasonably apparent to staff or security contractors who are tasked
with supervising entry to the premises that the person:
(a) has at any time during the previous 6 hours unlawfully consumed
alcohol in a public place.
(b) has at any time during the previous 6 hours exhibited anti‐social or
aggressive behaviour in the vicinity of that premises, at any of the
Affected Hotels, or any other place within the Hamilton central business
district.
(c) has at any time during the previous 6 hours been argumentative,
disorderly or abusive to the staff or patrons of that premises.
–3–
ii. If it becomes known or should be reasonably apparent to any of the
licensee's staff or security contractors that any such person described in sub
condition (i) above has otherwise gained entry to the premises, the licensee's
staff or security contractors shall take prompt and reasonable steps to remove
that person from the premises.
iii. The licensee shall display a sign on the exterior of the premises advising
patrons of the circumstances in which they will be refused entry and the times
when a lockout is in effect.
iv. Free water stations shall be placed on every bar within the licensed
premises.
v. On Friday and Saturday evenings no liquor is to be taken off or carried away
from the licensed premises after 10 pm.
vi. Signs must be prominently displayed in every bar area of the licensed
premises, in lettering not less than 50 mm in height, advising patrons of the
need to reduce noise and impact upon the local neighbourhood.
5. No stockpiling of drinks
The licensee shall ensure, by adequate supervision methods throughout the
licensed premises, that no patron is stockpiling drinks. "Stockpiling" means
that any one person has more than 2 unconsumed drinks at any one time (a
patron may purchase up to 4 drinks at one time).
6. 1 am Lockout on Saturday and Sunday
The licensee shall implement a lockout on Saturday and Sunday mornings as
follows:
(i) The licensee must not permit patrons to enter the licensed premises after 1.00
am or before 5 am (the lockout period).
(ii) For the avoidance of doubt, patrons already present in the licensed premises
before the start of the lockout period may:
(a) leave the licensed premises at any time, or
(b) remain on the licensed premises while the licensed premises are authorised to
trade,
but are not permitted to re‐enter the licensed premises during the lockout period.
7. Pre‐closure procedures
On Friday and Saturday evenings the Licensee must conduct the following pre‐
closure procedures 30 minutes prior to closure:
(i) Sale and supply of alcohol must cease, and water and food continue to be
served or made available.
–4–
(ii) Live entertainment must cease, and music, if any, must be limited to
background levels and must not be audible outside the venue.
(iii) Lighting must be set at levels to indicate that the venue is in a staged close
down procedure.
(iv) Announcements must be made within the licensed premises to advise patrons
of: the need to respect neighbours by departing the area quickly and quietly, the
availability of free water, transportation options, the presence of CCTV monitoring
and that any anti-social behaviour will be reported to police. These
announcements must be made at 15 minute intervals until the last person has left
the licensed premises.
8. Rubbish collection
During the period between one hour after closure and 7 am, the licensee shall
arrange for one (1) rubbish collection to take place with a view to ensuring that all
bottles and other drink containers are collected from the immediate environs of
the licensed premises, including the adjoining footpath, gutters and roads up to a
distance of 10 metres in every direction from the perimeter of the licensed
premises.
9. Dispersal of patrons
On Friday and Saturday evenings, security officers must make reasonable efforts
after midnight to encourage patrons not to linger within the perimeter of the
licensed premises as they depart and to ensure that all patrons have left the
environs of the licensed premises 30 minutes after closure. This obligation does
not apply with regard to any person who seeks the assistance of hotel staff or
security contractors by reason that they fear harassment or violence and/or any
person who is participating in the operation of a secured taxi rank.
10. Information to staff
Within 14 days after the commencement of these conditions (or upon their
engagement, whichever is the latter), the licensees must ensure that every
member of staff and any security contractor is notified in writing of the conditions
disclosed in this letter; the need to apply responsible service of alcohol practices at
the licensed premises; details of available transport; the location of the 50 metre
vicinity that applies to any excluded persons; and the location of any Alcohol Free
Zones in Hamilton.
(“New Conditions”)
8. The Authority notes that New Conditions 1 and 4(iii) have been drafted in a manner that departs in
only minor and technical respects from the Police Proposal, to recognise that the Affected Hotels
have already prepared a Plan of Management and relevant signage in consultation with Police. The
Authority does not require the Affected Hotels to prepare a new Plan or new signage for the
purposes of this decision. Rather, the New Conditions require the Affected Hotels to maintain their
compliance with these obligations on an ongoing basis.
9. The Authority is not satisfied that it remains necessary to impose, on an ongoing basis, Condition 2
of the Review Decision, which required the Affected Hotels to arrange for six monthly compliance
–5–
audits by a suitably qualified person who is not associated with each licensed business.
Furthermore, the Authority is not satisfied that it is in the public interest to impose, on an ongoing
basis, Condition 5(i) of the Review Decision, which required the Affected Hotels to prepare and
submit monthly reports of troublesome patrons to the local liquor accord.
10. The Authority notes that the Affected Hotels have obligations to maintain incident registers and
must observe a number of other compliance and record keeping requirements under the Act.
Conditions 2 and 5(i) were imposed by the Review Decision for a period of 15 months, in the
immediate context of the Authority’s finding that the Affected Hotels were giving rise to undue
disturbance to the neighbourhood. The material before the Authority at this time does not satisfy
the Authority that there is a sufficient case for imposing, in the public interest, these additional
compliance and reporting requirements upon an ongoing basis.
OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS
The Initial Police Submission
11. On 9 November 2011 the Local Area Commander of Newcastle Police filed a submission (“the
Initial Police Submission”).
12. This submission requests that the Authority impose all 11 of the Review Conditions against the
licences of all six Affected Hotels on a “permanent” basis. Police furnished 4 graphs, apparently
prepared by the NSW Police Alcohol and Licensing Enforcement Command (“ALEC”), identifying a
trend in all recorded assaults in Hamilton on Friday and Saturday evenings and Saturday and
Sunday mornings during the period from December 2007 to October 2011.
13. Briefly, the Initial Police Submission contends that:

The aim of the Review Conditions was to safeguard patrons, the community,
Police and hospitality workers from alcohol related harm occurring in and around
licensed venues in the Hamilton entertainment precinct.

Police assault statistics show that “some inroads have been made towards this
goal” but that a “concentrated and sustained effort should continue”.

The quiet and good order of the neighbourhood around the licensed venues in
Hamilton “has been improved through the imposition of conditions” and
“through the importance given by the licensees to appropriately managing their
premises and respecting the neighbourhood that they share with both private
and commercial residents”.

The results “show a demonstrable decline in the recorded incidents of assaults
on licensed premises at Hamilton”.

There is evidence to suggest that the imposition of the Review Conditions on the
Affected Hotels within Hamilton has “accelerated the decline in assaults” for that
suburb overall.
–6–

The removal of the Review Conditions “would likely see an increase in offences,
resulting in more members of the community being harmed, some very seriously,
by alcohol related violence”.

The effect of imposing licence restrictions in the Newcastle CBD by the Liquor
Administration Board (“LAB”) in 2008 has been the subject of research by the
New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (“BOCSAR”). In Jones
et al “The impact of restricted alcohol availability on alcohol-related violence in
Newcastle” (2009) assaults after dark were recorded to have fallen by 29% in the
Newcastle CBD following the imposition of licence conditions upon 14 late
trading hotels, and this reduction has been maintained. Police contend that with
the imposition of similar conditions in Hamilton “there is no reason why the
reductions seen in Hamilton would not be maintained or continue to fall”.

No evidence has been forthcoming from the Affected Hotels concerning any
financial burdens caused by the imposition of the Review Conditions and in any
event “the safety of the community should be considered paramount”.
14. On 9 November 2011 Police served a copy of the Initial Police Submission upon the licensees of
each of the respondent Hotels.
Submission from NSW Police Association
15. A short submission was made to the Authority by the Police Association on 9 November 2011. This
submission was only directed to the Kent Hotel, and recommends the continuation of the
Conditions (for an unspecified period) upon the licence of that particular venue, by reason of its
recent history of violence and its listing as a “declared premises”.
Submission from Hunter New England District Health
16. On 10 November 2011 the Authority received a submission from Dr John Wiggers of the NSW
Department of Health’s Hunter New England District Health office (“NSW Health”).
17. NSW Health recommend that all of the Review Conditions be maintained, as a harm minimisation
measure, against the licences of all Affected Hotels, to address public health issues arising from
the consequences of alcohol related abuse, violence and other harms.
Submission on behalf of the Resident Complainant
18. On 11 November 2011 the Authority received a submission dated 9 November 2011 (“Resident
Complainant’s Submission”) prepared on behalf of the Resident Complainant by her
representative , Mr Tony Brown, who had made numerous submissions on behalf of the Resident
Complainant throughout the course of the delegate’s consideration of the 2009 disturbance
complaint and the Authority’s review of the delegate’s decision.
19. Mr Brown submits that the Authority should impose more onerous licensing restrictions than were
determined by the Authority in the Review Decision.
20. Much of Mr Brown’s submissions focussed upon arguments as to the proper decision making
process that the Authority should observe, arising from an apparent concern that the Resident
–7–
Complainant should have the “last word” once the Affected Hotels and Police have made their
submissions.
21. In this submission Mr Brown “seeks the Authority’s advice” as to whether:
(i) the 6 monthly audits that the Hotels were required to prepare pursuant to
the Review Conditions were complied with
(ii) any other reporting requirements imposed upon the Hotels pursuant to the
Conditions have been observed by the Hotels
(iii) the Authority will be seeking submissions from the Newcastle branch of
OLGR’s Compliance section and Newcastle local police
(iv) the Authority will provide the Hotels’ submissions to the Resident
Complainant for an opportunity to respond
(v) the Authority will consider imposing stricter conditions than the 11
Conditions imposed in the Review Decision.
22. Mr Brown further submits that:
(i) There is “unintended bias” in paragraph 302 of the Review Decision because
the Authority did not contemplate imposing more onerous licence conditions
than those that were determined in the Review Decision – it only notifies an
intention to consider whether or not the Review Conditions should be
imposed for a further period than the 15 months stated in the Review
Decision. The Authority should take this opportunity to consider
strengthening the Review Conditions.
(ii) The Authority should “not begin to contemplate any possible weakening” of
the Review Conditions if the Affected Hotels have not complied with the
Review Conditions, including the reporting requirements.
(iii) There should be an onus upon any Affected Hotel that seeks to weaken the
Review Conditions for economic reasons to provide “detailed independently
audited and verifiable evidence of economic loss” arising from the Review
Conditions. The Affected Hotels should demonstrate that any claimed
economic loss does not flow from:





a general downturn in the economy
the national “bursting of the pub valuation bubble”
a generalised reduction in Hotel patronage
poor management and marketing by a Hotel
greater competition from other licensed premises and
alternative entertainment venues.
(iv) The Resident Complainant does not have before them “any useful Police
linking data” to compare the residents’ experience with the Police position.
(v) The Resident Complainant “cannot be sure” that any reduction in reported
assault levels is not in part attributable to a failure by the Affected Hotels to
properly record incidents or a practice on the part of the Affected Hotels of
dissuading victims from reporting incidents . Mr Brown claims to be aware of
–8–
one case of a hotel dissuading the victim to make a report. (The Authority
notes that no details are provided in relation to this allegation.)
(vi) Reliance upon assault data alone does not give a complete picture of alcohol
related harm – such as adverse health impacts arising from alcohol
poisoning, alcohol related accidents, etc.
(vii) After the Review Decision was made, the Kent Hotel was listed as a “declared
premises” under Schedule 4 to the Act. The Resident Complainant contends
“that this development alone” warrants a strengthening of the Review
Conditions.
(viii) The Authority should consider adjusting the trading hours of the Affected
Hotels as this is the “only proven measure” of reducing harm. The Resident
Complainant refers to the 2010 BOCSAR research conducted by Kypri et al on
the impact of the LAB’s April 2008 decision to wind back the trading hours for
all late trading hotels within the Newcastle CBD.
(ix) The late trading premises in the Newcastle CBD and Hamilton have “defied
the State wide trend” of an overall reduction in the number of licensed
premises being listed as declared premises under Schedule 4 of the Act.
(x) The Residents’ perspective is that they have experienced “only a very slight
amelioration of the level of disturbances” since the time of the Review
Decision.
(xi) OLGR has reported a 23% reduction in alcohol related assaults and an
increase in Hotel patronage following the introduction of a trial measure
between July 2009 and June 2010 involving the voluntary service of only mid
strength drinks (3.5% or less) in Gunnedah after midnight.
(xii) The Authority should reduce trading hours in Hamilton and only permit
medium strength drinks to be sold at the Affected Hotels after midnight.
(xiii) If the Authority is minded to extend the Review Conditions on a trial basis,
it should require a trial to be “independently supervised” by BOCSAR at the
Affected Hotels’ expense.
(xiv) The Resident Complainant notes the 2011 “intervention” by Minister Souris
regarding the proposed Kensington nightclub in the Newcastle CBD. (The
Authority notes that this is an apparent reference to the amendment of the
Liquor Regulation 2008 preventing the use of catering licences on premises in
respect of a which a decision to refuse a liquor licence has been made in the
preceding 24 months.) The Resident Complainant submits that the Authority
should adopt the “principle” stated by the Minister that “public safety is
paramount”.
Notice of intention to extend the Review Conditions on an interim basis
–9–
23. On 11 November 2011 the Authority wrote to the licensees and solicitors of all the Affected
Hotels, notifying its intention to extend the Review Conditions upon an interim basis for 3 months
before giving further consideration to the Police Proposal.
24. The Hotels were invited to make immediate submissions on the proposed interim extension of the
Review Conditions and were informed that they would have the further opportunity to address
whether the Police Proposal should be adopted by 1 February 2012. (The Authority notes that by
reason of a delay by Police in filing further submissions, the time for the Hotels’ submissions in
reply to the Police Proposal was extended to 14 February 2012.)
Initial Response from Northern Star and Hamilton Station Hotels
25. On 14 November 2011 Mr Paul O’Sullivan sent an email to the Authority in response to the
Authority’s letter of 11 November 2011 advising that he acts for the Northern Star and Hamilton
Station Hotels and that his clients consent, on a without prejudice basis, to the interim imposition
of the Conditions but they intend to make submissions in response to the proposed permanent
imposition of the Review Conditions by 1 February 2012.
Initial Response from Kent Hotel
26. On 15 November 2011 the Authority received a short submission from Mr Micah Jenkins, solicitor
for the Kent Hotel, opposing the extension of the Review Conditions, or in the alternative,
proposing that Review Condition 7 (which imposes a lockout from 1am on Saturday and Sunday
mornings) be modified so that it commences at 1.30 am, to be consistent with lockouts in place in
the Newcastle CBD.
27. Mr Jenkins rejects the Police Association’s claim that the Kent Hotel is a “level 2” premises in
Schedule 4 of the Act.
(The Authority notes that while the Kent Hotel was, until recently, a “level 2” declared premises
the latest ranking of premises by reference to the occurrence of violence performed by the
Director General that took effect on 1 December 2011 through the Liquor Amendment (Special
Licence Conditions) Regulation No 2 (2011) does not list the Kent Hotel as a declared premises. At
the time of this decision, the Kent Hotel is not a level 2 declared premises.)
Decision to extend the Review Conditions upon an interim basis
28. On 18 November 2011 the Authority notified the Affected Hotels of its decision to extend the
operation of all of the Review Conditions on an interim basis only until the Authority has had the
opportunity to consider whether they should be imposed upon an ongoing basis.
Request for Further Police Submission
29. On 30 November 2011 the Authority wrote to the Newcastle Local Area Commander, requesting
Police to respond to a series of questions from the Authority seeking clarification of the Initial
Police Submission and requesting that Police provide further material in relation to the Police
Proposal.
30. In addition to clarifying the Initial Police Submission, Police were requested to provide any
evidence or other material by way of Computerised Operational Policing System reports (“COPS
Reports”) detailing specific incidents occurring upon, or linked to, the Affected Hotels.
– 10 –
31. Police were also invited to comment whether, in their view, any of the Review Conditions might
be better implemented on a uniform basis across the Hamilton entertainment precinct, should the
Director General vary the Newcastle/Hamilton Precinct Liquor Accord under section 136B of the
Act to include those measures.
(The Authority notes that this enquiry arose from a passing suggestion made by Police in the Initial
Police Submission that use of a local liquor accord might be an alternative to imposing licence
conditions only upon the Affected Hotels. On 25 February 2011 a Precinct Liquor Accord was
approved for Newcastle and Hamilton by the then Director General following amendments
enacted by Parliament during 2010 that introduced sections 136A-F into the Act. All of the
Affected Hotels, as well as other licensed premises in Newcastle and Hamilton, have been
designated as mandatory participants in that accord – that is, they must comply with certain
regulatory measures that are specified in the PLA.)
SUPPLEMENTARY POLICE SUBMISSION DATED 21 DECEMBER 2011
32. While Police were requested to respond to the Authority’s letter by 1 December 2011, they sought
two extensions before filing a further submission with the Authority and the Affected Hotels dated
21 December 2011 (“the Further Police Submission”).
33. The Further Police Submission comprises:
(i) A 7 page cover letter from the Local Area Commander dated 21 December 2011.
(ii) An Evidence Matrix summarising all recent COPS Reported incidents linked by Police
to the Exchange Hotel, plus the COPS reports from which that Evidence Matrix has
been compiled.
(iii) An Evidence Matrix summarising all recent COPS Reported incidents linked by Police
to the Kent Hotel plus the COPS reports from which that Evidence Matrix has been
compiled.
(iv) An Evidence Matrix summarising all recent COPS Reported incidents linked by Police
to the Northern Star Hotel plus the COPS reports from which that Evidence Matrix has
been compiled.
(v) An Evidence Matrix summarising all recent COPS Reported incidents linked by Police
to the Gateway Hotel plus the COPS reports from which that Evidence Matrix has
been compiled.
(vi) An Evidence Matrix summarising all recent COPS Reported incidents linked by Police
to the Hamilton Station Hotel plus the COPS reports from which that Evidence Matrix
has been compiled.
(vii) An Evidence Matrix summarising all recent COPS Reported incidents linked by Police
to the Sydney Junction Hotel plus the COPS reports from which that Evidence Matrix
has been compiled.
(viii) A map showing the location of all 6 Affected Hotels in relation to each other.
– 11 –
(ix) In response to the Authority’s request for Police to comment upon the latest crime
data from BOCSAR for the Newcastle LGA, Police refer to 2 crime maps from that
report for the year 2010 showing the location of “hotspots” for the occurrence of
alcohol related assaults and all non-domestic violence assaults within the Newcastle
LGA.
(x) Police data regarding alcohol related assaults in Hamilton on Friday and Saturday
evenings from 10pm to 6am, during the period from January 2007 to November 2011.
This data deals with Police recorded assault incidents by location, disclosing those
incidents occurring at the following Police designated location categories:



residential premises
out of doors/at licensed premises and
“other” locations.
This data indicates that for the period from January 2007 to August 2010 the average
monthly rate of assaults flagged by reporting Police as “alcohol related” was 4.7 while
from September 2010 (after the Authority imposed the Review Conditions) to
November 2011 the average monthly alcohol related assault rate had fallen to 3.8.
(xi) Police data regarding all assaults in Hamilton on Friday and Saturday evenings from
10pm to 6 am during the period from January 2007 to November 2011. This data
deals with Police recorded assault incidents occurring by location, disclosing those
assaults occurring at the following Police designated location categories:



residential premises
out of doors and licensed premises and
“other” locations.
This data indicates that for the period from January 2007 to August 2010 the average
assault rate for this area was 5 assaults per month, while from September 2010 (after
the Authority imposed the Review Conditions) to November 2011 the average assault
rate was 3.9 per month.
(xii) Police data regarding all assaults in the Newcastle and Newcastle West area on Friday
and Saturday evenings from 10pm to 6am from January 2007 to November 2011. This
data deals with Police recorded assault incidents occurring by location disclosing
those assaults occurring at the following Police designated location categories:



residential premises
out of doors and licensed premises and
“other” locations.
This data indicates that for the period from January 2005 to February 2008 there was
an average of 21.3 assaults in this area per month, whereas from April 2008 (the point
at which the LAB imposed licence conditions) to November 2011, the average
monthly assault rate had dropped to 12.0.
(xiii) A table of all “reactive incidents” (incorporating assault, affray, malicious damage,
intoxicated persons, licensing offences, street offences, drug detection and sexual
– 12 –
assault incidents where Police had become involved) occurring in the suburb of
Hamilton for the period September 2010 to December 2011.
(xiv) A police notebook recording attempts by Police on 8 December 2011 to acquire the
six-monthly compliance audit data from the Affected Hotels for the purposes of the
Further Police Submission.
Police submission on Review Condition 2 - the 6 monthly audit requirement
34. Police advise that of the six Affected Hotels only the Beaumont Exchange, Kent Hotel, Northern
Star and Gateway Hotels have made available to Police their six monthly compliance audits.
35. According to the Initial Police Submission and notes recorded in a Police Notebook entry dated 8
December 2011, the Sydney Junction Hotel had not yet completed its compliance audit. The
Hamilton Station Hotel had not responded to a Police message requesting the production of its
compliance audits.
(The Authority notes that the Sydney Junction Hotel provided audit material with its
written submission received by the Authority on 3 February 2012.)
36. Police observe that the audit material submitted to Police by four of the Affected Hotels has been
prepared by “employees from other nearby licenced venues”. So far as Police are aware, this work
has not caused any significant professional costs to the Affected Hotels by them having to engage
professional auditors.
37. Police submit that it is in the public interest for this requirement to be maintained as a condition
on the licences of all of the Affected Hotels, to ensure that each of the Affected Hotels properly
maintains its Plan of Management.
38. According to Police, these audits are “consistent with community expectations” that licensed
premises should operate in an orderly and efficient manner. While Police recommend that the six
monthly audit requirement remain as a condition on each licence, should the requirement be
implemented across all premises in the Hamilton entertainment precinct by way of a direction
made by the Director General under section 136D of the Act, then Police would accept this as an
alternative to imposing the condition on the individual licences of the Affected Hotels.
Police submission on Review Condition 5(i) requiring monthly reporting of excluded persons to
the Local Liquor Accord
39. Police submit that it is in the public interest for all of the licensees and the Police to be aware of
how many excluded persons there are among these late trading hotels. Police contend that this
monthly reporting requirement is not onerous and should remain a licence condition.
40. While Police acknowledge that section 78 of the Act enables licensees and Police to take action by
way of Banning Orders, the creation of monthly reports provides a means by which evidence can
be gathered for the purposes of making such applications.
Police submission on Review Condition 9 requiring the daily performance of a garbage
collection between close of trade and 7 am the next morning
– 13 –
41. Police suggest that, as an alternative to imposing this Review Condition upon the licences of only
the Affected Hotels, Review Condition 9 along with Review Condition 2 and Review Condition 5 (i)
could be implemented across a liquor accord, but all other Review Conditions should remain
imposed as specific conditions upon the individual licences of each of the Affected Hotels.
Police submissions on the four graphs submitted on 9 November 2011
42. In response to the Authority’s request for Police to better explain why they believe that the
imposition of the Review Conditions during August 2010 has had an impact upon assault rates in
Hamilton generally, Police make the following further submissions:
(i) “It is clear” that these graphs illustrate a “marked and sustained drop in assaults”
occurring in the location category of “licensed premises/out of doors” that has
coincided with the imposition of the Review Conditions.
(ii) The graphs submitted on 9 November 2011 cover all reported assaults, occurring
in public or private places, whether alcohol related or otherwise, within the
suburb of Hamilton.
(iii) Police assault statistics indicate that while there was an overall average of 5
assaults per month in the period leading up to the imposition of the Review
Conditions, that rate dropped to 3.9 assaults per month for the period after the
imposition of the Review Conditions.
(iv) Police also refer to a graph entitled “Alcohol Related Assaults in Hamilton on
Friday and Saturday Night from 10pm to 6am by quarter and premise“. This
identifies assault incidents that have been flagged by the reporting Police officers
as “alcohol related”.
(v) Police submit that, while alcohol related assaults overall have dropped in
Hamilton, if one considers a breakdown of reported assaults by place of
occurrence the data illustrates that the reduction is occurring in the category “out
of doors/on licensed premises”.
(vi) Police submit that, prior to the imposition of the Review Conditions, the monthly
average for all alcohol related assaults in the suburb of Hamilton occurring in the
Police location category of “licenced premises/out of doors” was 4.7. This
monthly average dropped to 3.8 after the imposition of the Review Conditions. By
comparison, the rates of alcohol related assaults recorded as occurring in the
Police location category of “residential” remained stable.
(vii) Police infer from this data that the Review Conditions have had an impact upon
assault rates in the location category in which they may be expected to have had
an impact. That is, they are affecting the rate of alcohol related assaults occurring
in licensed premises and in other public places around licensed premises while
not affecting the rate for assaults occurring within private residences.
(viii) Police refer to their graph which details assaults in Hamilton on Friday and
Saturdays from 10pm to 6am and compare this to a similar graph for assault rates
in Newcastle and Newcastle West on Friday and Saturday nights from 10 pm to 6
am.
– 14 –
(ix) Police submit that both of these graphs demonstrate an effect whereby the
imposition of licence restrictions in both of these areas has correlated with a
reduced assault rate being recorded in the “licensed premises/out of doors”
categories, while in both cases the imposition of licence restrictions did not affect
the recorded assault rate occurring in the “private residence” category.
(x) Police submit that as of March 2008, prior to the LAB decision to impose new
licence conditions taking effect upon all late trading hotels in the Newcastle CBD,
the average number of all assaults occurring in the suburbs of Newcastle and
Newcastle West was 21.3 per month. That average dropped to 12 per month
after the LAB’s licence conditions were imposed. By comparison, the reported
assault rate occurring within residential premises in those suburbs remained
relatively constant, at 0.4 per month prior to the LAB decision and 0.3 per month
after that decision.
(xi) Police advise, by way of background, that they had convened a meeting with the
licensees of the late trading licensed premises in Hamilton in light of the
regulatory action taken by the LAB’s decision. Police proposed that the late
trading premises in Hamilton should voluntarily adopt similar measures to those
that had been imposed by the LAB in the Newcastle CBD.
(xii) Police submit that, following an agreement reached with the Hamilton late
trading licensees to implement certain measures (on a voluntary basis) in
November 2008, there has been a “decline in assaults from that time” that is
reflected in the Police assault statistics for Hamilton.
(xiii) Police further submit that the effect on assaults in Hamilton before and after the
imposition of the Review Conditions is consistent with the effect that was
demonstrated in the suburbs of Newcastle and Newcastle West before and after
the imposition of licence conditions in those areas.
(xiv) Police conclude that “it is clear” that overall less people are now being assaulted
in Hamilton on weekend nights than was previously the case. This, they submit, is
a positive development and in the circumstances it is “worth persisting” with the
Review Conditions rather than “risk a return to the recorded levels of violence
prevalent in Hamilton before August 2010”.
Police observations on the 2010 BOCSAR crime statistics for the Newcastle LGA
43. In response to an Authority’s request for Police to address the latest available crime data from
BOCSAR for the Newcastle LGA, Police refer to two BOCSAR crime maps that they have extracted
from the BOCSAR crime report for that LGA for the year 2010.
44. Police submit that on the basis of this BOCSAR data “it is clear that the Hamilton area is a high
density hotspot for the period of 2010 for assaults”. Police contend that given the overall number
of assaults recorded in that report:
“Hamilton will remain a high density hotspot for alcohol related assaults in 2011. The
restrictions have had some positive impact and should become permanent
conditions of the licences.”
– 15 –
Police evidence of specific disturbance incidents that have been linked to the Affected Hotels
between September 2010 and November 2011
45. In addition to the overall crime statistics provided by Police for Hamilton and Newcastle, Police
have provided, at the Authority’s request, individual COPS reports of various alcohol related
disturbance events that have been linked by Police to each of the Affected Hotels since the
imposition of the Review Conditions. Those reports cover a period from September 2010 to
November 2011.
46. Unlike the Review Decision, the Authority is not presently considering whether any or all of the
Affected Hotels are causing “undue disturbance” to the quiet and good order of the
neighbourhood within the meaning of section 79 of the Act.
47. Nevertheless, it was considered appropriate to seek more recent COPS Reports to discern what
types of individual alcohol related disturbance incidents are occurring in Hamilton that involve
patrons of the Affected Hotels – in order to supplement the broader assault data that was
provided by Police.
48. As was the case with the material before the Authority when it made the Review Decision, the
number of adverse incidents linked by Police to each of the Affected Hotels varies considerably
from premises to premises. This new material covers a range of alcohol related disturbance
incidents from alleged assaults, offensive conduct, intoxication in public, malicious damage and
failure to quit licensed premises.
49. The recent COPS Reports provided with the Supplementary Police Submission concern the period
from September 2010 to November 2011. They are, for the most part, relevant to the Authority’s
assessment of whether ongoing restrictions on the operation of the late trading Affected Hotels
are in the public interest. In most cases, the reported perpetrator or victim who has become
involved in the incident in question last drank at one of the Affected Hotels. That is not to say that
all of these COPS Reports would satisfy the legal nexus prescribed by either sections 79(1)(a) or (b)
of the Act when assessing “undue disturbance” - but having examined each report, the Authority is
satisfied that most of these reports are relevant in that they concern the conduct of persons who
have last drank at the Affected Hotels.
50. It is apparent from this latest bundle of COPS Reports that the greatest number of adverse COPS
Reports (by some margin) are linked to patrons of the Kent Hotel, then patrons of the Exchange
Hotel, then patrons of the Hamilton Station Hotel and the Sydney Junction Hotel. Patrons of the
Gateway Hotel and Northern Star Hotel feature in the fewest of these most recent COPS reports.
Many of the incidents recorded in these COPS Reports do not actually occur on the licensed
premises, but in other public places after a party to the incident departed from an Affected Hotel.
AFFECTED HOTELS’ RESPONSE TO THE POLICE SUBMISSION
Summary of Sydney Junction Hotel Submission in response to the Police Proposal
51. In his new submission Mr Norberry, the licensee of the Sydney Junction Hotel, states that he fails
to see how Review Condition 2, requiring the performance of a six monthly audit, is of benefit to a
busy hotelier. He advises that Police have “never asked for the audit” until they prepared their
recent submissions to the Authority, nor have they shown any interest in following up his hotel's
compliance with this condition.
– 16 –
52. Mr Norberry submits that he has a commercial imperative to run his business properly because
“healthy happy clients come back and spend more money, unsatisfied or threatened clients do
not”.
53. On Review Condition 5 (i), which requires each licensee to submit monthly reports of troublesome
patrons to the local liquor accord, Mr Norberry says that “this creates more paper work” and
repeats the work that late trading licensees must in any case perform when maintaining incident
books.
54. On Review Condition 9, which requires the performance of one daily rubbish collection between
close of trade and 7 am, Mr Norberry advises that whether or not this remains a requirement on
the licence of his hotel “my staff and I will continue to pick up rubbish as we always have day or
night for the last twenty years, a clean pub and surrounds is vital for the presentation of a Hotel”.
55. On Review Condition 7, requiring the 1 am lockout, Mr Norberry submits that as a consequence of
this measure :
“We have in Hamilton lost the ambience of a happy and free feel on the street that
distinguished us from other areas of the Hunter. People no longer move from venue to venue
enjoying the atmosphere the different premises provide. Hamilton used to be the only spot in
NSW that reminded me of Newtown with a free and easy mixing of races and sexes.
Now the gays rush to their venue to the exclusion of the others, taking away the opportunity
for the rest of the community to learn through familiarity, tolerance that only proximity can
give. ”
56. Mr Norberry states that he is “not against” the use of lockouts per se and has used them himself to
deal with circumstances when the Hotel is full, to prevent crowds spilling out on the street and to
deal with race days or major events. He notes that his own Hotel had in place a permanent
(voluntary) lockout from 2.30 am. Mr Norberry submits that flexibility is a valuable tool to deal
with difficult customers and that regulation that is too prescriptive breeds resentment among the
public.
57. Mr Norberry compares the 1 am lockout in Hamilton with the 1.30 am lockout in effect at late
trading hotels in the Newcastle CBD, an area that has five hotels on the Schedule 4 list of declared
premises. Mr Norberry also compares the licensing regime in place in Kings Cross, which has a 2
am lockout for declared premises only.
58. Mr Norberry submits that an early lockout in Hamilton may encourage the growth of small
“marginally legal” night club venues. Mr Norberry advises that one late venue with an on premises
licence, the Kavon Theatre Restaurant, now trades until 5 am in the morning - supplying gourmet
pies to its patrons in order to comply with liquor laws for a restaurant.
59. Mr Norberry takes issue with the way that crime statistics have been used by Police. He notes that
Police and the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing (“OLGR”) permit his hotel to challenge recorded
incidents of violence that have been linked to his hotel for the purposes of determining whether or
not the Hotel should become a “declared premises” under Schedule 4 of the Act. He submits that
“up to 40%” of the incidents attributed to his hotel at first instance are ultimately agreed by Police
to not be properly linked to his hotel. Mr Norberry notes that his hotel is not a declared premises
and none of the hotels in Hamilton is declared premises.
– 17 –
60. Mr Norberry contends that “the figures relied upon by Police do not take [into] account the impact
upon assault rates of heavy policing and the continued heavy presence of railway security” in
reducing the recorded incidents of disturbance in Hamilton.
61. Mr Norberry advises that at no stage in the last 15 months have Police or the Resident
Complainant had any communication with the hotel on the effectiveness of the Conditions.
62. On Review Condition 5, which requires the Affected Hotels to deny entry to persons who have
been observed by their staff to be drinking in public or who are argumentative or aggressive in the
vicinity of the premises, Mr Norberry observes that it is the responsibility of Police and the Council
to enforce Alcohol Free Zones in the area. Mr Norberry expects that patrons will “still pre load on
the street” but will do so out of the sight of his security staff.
63. Mr Norberry does not object to Review Conditions 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11.
64. Mr Norberry makes the general observation that Newcastle is in a “state of rebuilding” with cruise
ships now docking, accommodation at high occupancy and a large and growing international
university. He submits that “people visiting the sixth biggest city in the country expect a variety of
entertainment venues in a vibrant district”.
65. Mr Norberry submits that most of the arguments for licensing restrictions revolve around the
behaviour of young people - ignoring their practices of pre-loading, drug use and under-age
drinking that are not the responsibility of the licensees of the Affected Hotels.
66. Mr Norberry submits that reducing the tax on low strength alcohol would be a more useful harm
minimisation measure than micro managing publicans. Mr Norberry advises that his hotel has
“shed the equivalent of five full time jobs in the last twelve months” due to the type of regulations
now imposed by the Authority. He believes that other Hotels in the area have also shed staff by
reason of the Review Conditions.
The Exchange Hotel response to the Police Proposal
67. The licensee of the Exchange Hotel, Mr Stewart, submits that any reduction in disturbance events
in Hamilton “cannot be solely attributed to” the Review Conditions. Rather, the Affected Hotels
have implemented measures that have “significantly contributed” to the quiet and good order of
the neighbourhood. Mr Stewart cites:

The February 2011 Newcastle/Hamilton PLA which has “enabled” its members to
participate in RSA refresher training for staff, patron education via the
distribution of “Hassle Free Nights” literature, the development of PLA Plans and
the provision of a formal forum for industry and community to interact with
venue operators. The PLA has 41 members and in addition to the Affected Hotels
there are 7 other late trading venues that are members of the PLA.

The establishment of secure taxi ranks as part of the Hassle Free Nights policy
initiative.

Additional late night buses, with new stops located outside the Exchange, Kent
and Sydney Junction Hotels, established in November 2010.
– 18 –

The provision by each Affected Hotel of a free alcohol breathalyser on premises,
established as an initiative with the RTA during November 2010.
68. Mr Stewart submits that the Authority should give “little weight” to the NSW Health’s submission
dated 10 November 2011. He contends that:

NSW Health’s submissions go to national health policy which would be more
appropriately dealt with on a “state wide legislative basis” rather than via the
mechanism of this review which relates to a neighbourhood complaint.

NSW Health does not substantiate its claim that there are “ongoing problems
regarding the occurrence of alcohol related harm” in the Hamilton Area.

In the alternative, NSW Health relies upon “out dated data” for its assertion that
there are “ongoing problems” in Hamilton. NSW Health notes the fact that the
Hotels were included in the Hassle Free Nights initiative as evidence of ongoing
issues in that area. However, Mr Stewart submits that the decision (by the
Director General) to include the Affected Hotels in that initiative was based upon
2008 data.

NSW Health further notes that one of the Affected Hotels (the Kent) is a “declared
premises” under Schedule 4 of the Act but this ceased to be the case on 31
December 2011. The Exchange Hotel has never been a declared premises.

Bottle shops, restaurants and other licensed venues contribute to the service of
alcohol in Hamilton, not simply the Affected Hotels.

While NSW Health refers to the results achieved following the imposition of
licence conditions upon late trading hotels in the Newcastle CBD by the LAB, the
situation in Newcastle CBD is “not comparable” to the situation in Hamilton.
Recorded levels of violence are “less frequent” and “less serious” in Hamilton
than is the case for the Newcastle CBD.
69. Mr Stewart submits that the Authority should give “little, if any weight” to the submissions made
by Mr Brown on behalf of the Resident Complainant dated 11 November 2011 because:

This submission does not include any direct or indirect evidence of disturbance
caused by the Exchange Hotel or any other Affected Hotel.

The Resident Complainant does not discuss the specific Review Conditions that
are under consideration.

The Resident Complainant’s assertion that the Kent Hotel is a declared premises
under Schedule 4 of the Act is incorrect.

None of the Affected Hotels is listed as declared premises in Schedule 4. The
Kent’s (previous) listing does not support the case for imposing the Review
Conditions upon the Affected Hotels generally or the Exchange Hotel specifically.
– 19 –

The Resident Complainant refers generally to “independent research that clearly
establishes the clear direct link between late trading and alcohol related violence
and other harm indicators” without particularising that research. The Exchange
Hotel submits that such material would not, in any event, assist the Authority in
relation to the complaint against late trading hotels in Hamilton.

It would be more appropriate for the Resident Complainant to make submissions
of a general policy nature to government and lobby for changes to legislation.
Even if such general research was reliable, it would be “unfair and unreasonable”
to apply it to the Affected Hotels alone.

While the Resident Complainant refers to harm minimisation measures that were
implemented in Gunnedah, that comparison is “unsustainable”. Gunnedah is a
country town with a population of 12,162 (as of 2006). Hamilton is an inner city
suburb of Newcastle. Newcastle has a population of 288,732 (as of 2006).
Gunnedah has six hotels in the entire town, only one of which trades after
midnight. Gunnedah has its own “unique social problems” that are different to a
large coastal city like Newcastle.

The Exchange Hotel opposes the Resident Complainant’s request for a trial
reduction in trading hours at the Affected Hotels, submitting that this would be
onerous, unwarranted, against the weight of evidence and “more appropriately
dealt with in the wider public policy debate realm”.
70. Mr Stewart further submits that, while the Police have argued that the Review Conditions have
produced a reduction in assaults in Hamilton generally, there is “no evidence” that any of the
Review Conditions have actually produced this effect. The Authority should reconsider each of the
Review Conditions on their merits.
71. Mr Stewart submits that Police exaggerated the evidence during the course of the previous
disturbance complaint and that the Authority should closely consider the new material provided
by Police.
72. Mr Stewart advises that the Police submission to the effect that the Affected Hotels are the only
late trading venues in Hamilton is incorrect. There are four other venues that trade late, including
the Kavon nightclub, which is licensed to trade until 5 am; the Hamilton Hotel, which operates past
midnight when it hosts functions; the “Depot” on Beaumont, which operates until 1am on
Saturday and Sunday mornings; and the Wickham Park Hotel, which operates until 3am on
Saturday and Sunday mornings.
73. With regard to Review Condition 1 which required the Affected Hotels to develop and maintain a
Plan of Management (to be filed with OLGR within 30 days of the Review Decision), Mr Stewart
submits that condition should now be removed because it “duplicates” requirements imposed by
the Director General in the PLA.
74. Mr Stewart submits that Review Condition 2, requiring the performance of six monthly compliance
audits, should be removed from the licence because the condition is “onerous, costly, and creates
an undue administrative burden” without providing any practical benefit to the community. Mr
Stewart submits that the failure of any of the Affected Hotels to complete those audits is not of
itself a reason for imposing this condition upon all of the Affected Hotels.
– 20 –
75. Mr Stewart submits that Review Condition 3, requiring the use of an RSA Marshall on Friday and
Saturday evenings after 11 pm, is reasonable and should be retained.
76. Mr Stewart submits that Review Condition 4, restricting the quantity and type of alcoholic drinks
that may be sold to any single patron after 10 pm on Friday and Saturday evenings, should be
varied to remove the requirement that a person may only be served 4 drinks or one bottle of wine
at a time. Mr Stewart submits that this aspect of the condition is “onerous and unwarranted” and
it costs the Hotel business without impacting upon disturbance to the community. Mr Stewart
makes this submission by reason that his premises “attracts an older demographic” and that it
inconveniences those customers - particularly larger business or tourist groups.
77. Mr Stewart argues that there will be RSA Marshalls and hotel staff to prevent drink stockpiling and
that the risk of intoxication is addressed by the limits upon the sale of high strength liquor on
premises after 10pm. He argues that the requirement that no one person may be sold more than 4
drinks or one bottle of wine at a time does not actually prevent stockpiling (which is ultimately
better policed by staff) and does not affect levels of sobriety in the hotel.
78. Mr Stewart submits that Review Condition 5, requiring the observance of certain “orderly precinct
strategies”, should be varied so that it only requires the provision by the licensee of water
stations, with a modified requirement as to signage on the premises reflecting the changed
conditions that he proposes.
79. Mr Stewart submits that the requirement of Review Condition 5(i) to submit monthly reports to
the Local Liquor Accord should be removed, as these reports have not been made available to the
Exchange Hotel by any of the other Affected Hotels and neither OLGR nor the Police have followed
up these reports.
80. Mr Stewart submits that this additional reporting requirement provides “no practical benefit for
the neighbourhood” and that the information in question is sourced from the Affected Hotels’
incidents registers and therefore represents an unwarranted administrative duplication of those
records. Mr Stewart submits that the failure of some of the Affected Hotels to comply with this
requirement does not provide a reason for imposing this requirement across the licences of all the
Affected Hotels.
81. With regard to Review Condition 5(ii) and (iii) requiring the refusal of entry of certain persons Mr
Stewart submits that the sub-condition should be removed because it is “onerous” for his staff to
enforce this condition against prospective patrons over a 6 hour period; it is unnecessary in that
the Hotel must in any event be vigilant to avoid the admission of any trouble makers to their
premises; and in the alternative such persons “may have calmed down” within a 6 hour period
and no longer be a source of concern for entry.
82. Mr Stewart submits that the requirement to refuse persons who have been recently seen by their
staff to have been consuming liquor in a public place creates “disappointment” and “verbal
conflict” on the part of those persons when they attempt to gain entry to the venue - especially
when the Alcohol Free Zones in the area are poorly signposted.
83. Mr Stewart advises that he is not aware of any incidents whereby Police have taken action to
enforce conduct within the nearby Alcohol Free Zones. While people may be drinking in Alcohol
Free Zones, this has not manifested as an issue for his hotel.
– 21 –
84. With regard to Review Condition 5(vi) which prohibits any patron from taking away liquor from the
premises after 10pm on Friday and Saturday evenings only, Mr Stewart submits that this sub
condition should be removed because it imposes costs by way of lost business without providing
any practical benefit to the community, especially when other venues within the PLA are able to
sell takeaway liquor after 10pm, including two hotels and one registered club that are nearby to
the Exchange Hotel.
85. Mr Stewart submits that prior to the imposition of this Review Condition the Exchange Hotel did
not sell large quantities of take away liquor after 10pm. The hotel is occasionally requested to sell
take away liquor after 10pm by shift workers, persons coming home after dining out, etc. Mr
Stewart submits that his hotel should be able to accommodate his patrons’ reasonable requests.
86. Mr Stewart further submits that this sub-condition places the Hotel at a commercial disadvantage
while not addressing the problem that it is supposed to address.
87. With regard to Review Condition 6 prohibiting the stockpiling of drinks, Mr Stewart submits that
this condition should be removed because it imposes compliance and monitoring costs upon his
business and does not provide any practical benefit to the community. The risk of intoxication, to
which this condition is addressed, is otherwise dealt with by a requirement (imposed by the
Director General in the PLA) that the Hotel prepare and maintain a Safety Plan, by the requirement
for an RSA Marshall after 11 pm on Fridays and Saturdays and by the restrictions imposed upon
certain types of drinks that may be served on Fridays and Saturdays after 10 pm.
88. With regard to Review Condition 7, which requires the observance of a lockout at 1 am on
Saturday and Sunday mornings, Mr Stewart submits that this condition is “unreasonable, unfair
and unwarranted” because there is a 1.30 am lockout in place in the Newcastle CBD, yet there is
less violence occurring in Hamilton than in the Newcastle CBD. Mr Stewart submits that there is
“no evidence that lockouts alone reduce violence or alcohol related incidents”. Mr Stewart notes
the findings of Jones et al (2009) who examined the impact of the LAB’s 2008 decision to impose a
range of licence conditions across the licences of late trading hotels in the Newcastle CBD. He
notes that the authors of that report have made the following observation:
“we cannot say for certain that it was the reduction in trading hours, the lockout, the
other restrictions or simply better management practices that produced the effect.”
89. Mr Stewart submits that Schedule 4 of the Act should be the “benchmark” for the imposition of
late trading licence conditions. Schedule 4 imposes a lockout commencing at 2 am upon the most
violent venues in the State. If the Authority is minded to impose a lockout in Hamilton, that
lockout should also commence at 2 am.
90. Mr Stewart contends that imposing a lockout at a time that is “too early” is “damaging” in that it
forces people to “mill on the street, searching for human interaction, toilet facilities and
entertainment”. Mr Stewart submits that a lockout “promotes a sense of confusion and anger”.
91. Mr Stewart submits that the Review Condition is “draconian, lacks common sense, lacks
compassion and actually hinders patrons and the community”.
92. Mr Stewart also refers to the Director General’s 2011 decision regarding a disturbance complaint
made by Police against several licensed premises in Wollongong, when the Director General
declined a Police request to impose a lockout across that precinct because it was found by the
Director General to be unwarranted.
– 22 –
93. Mr Stewart submits that Review Condition 8, which imposes pre-closure requirements upon the
Affected Hotels, should be removed by reason that it amounts to a reduction of 30 minutes
trading time (in that liquor service must cease 30 minutes before closing). In Mr Stewart’s
experience patrons “ignore recorded messages” and in any event hoteliers and their staff are best
placed to manage the closure of their premises. Mr Stewart submits that there is “no evidence”
that this Review Condition contributes to the reduction of violence or anti-social behaviour.
94. Mr Stewart submits that Review Condition 9, requiring the performance of one rubbish collection
between close of trade and 7 am, should be removed from the licence by reason that it imposes
costs without any conferring any practical benefit to the community.
95. Mr Stewart submits that Police “do not support” the retention of this requirement as a licence
condition and that Hotels will “naturally” want to maintain their environs. Mr Stewart submits that
the requirement for the Affected Hotels to clean up an area that extends 10 metres beyond the
perimeter of their premises “means that only other commercial premises will benefit from the
clean-up” and that this requirement “does not relate to alcohol related violence or disturbance”.
96. Mr Stewart submits that Review Condition 10, requiring the dispersal of patrons from the hotel
environs after midnight, should be retained, along with Review Condition 11, which requires the
Affected Hotels to inform their staff and contractors about the licence conditions to which the
hotels are subject, the availability of transport options, the location of Alcohol Free Zones and the
50 metres vicinity surrounding each hotel.
Summary of Kent Hotel Submission in response to the Police Proposal
97. Mr Micah Jenkins of the law firm Harris Wheeler makes submissions on behalf of his client, the
Kent Hotel, in a letter dated 14 February 2012. Mr Jenkins endorses the submissions of Mr Stewart
from the Exchange Hotel and makes further points which may be summarised as follows:
(i) The Review Decision was made in a “highly politicised environment” in 2010 and
was subject to “considerable media scare mongering”.
(ii) Since that time a level of calm has been restored.
(iii) The Kent Hotel commends the Authority’s 2011 review decision with regard to
the Wollongong disturbance complaint.
(The Authority notes that it was not called upon to review the merits of the
Director General’s decision to not impose a lockout in Wollongong. The only
matter under review was whether the one condition that had been imposed by
the Director General requiring the restricted service of alcohol - in terms similar
to those prescribed by Schedule 4 of the Act for declared premises - should apply
at the Hotel Illawarra after 1am daily. The Authority found that it should.)
(iv) The Kent Hotel challenged the Police and Resident Complainant’s case against the
Affected Hotels during the 2010 Authority review, alleging that the Police
statistics were inflated. The Resident Complainant provided no prima facie case
against the Affected Hotels.
– 23 –
(v) The improvement in disturbance incidents in Hamilton that has been identified by
Police “cannot principally be attributed to the conditions imposed in 2010”. Mr
Jenkins contends that these improvements are “primarily due to improved RSA
monitoring by the Hotels”, the imposition of the Director General’s PLA and other
voluntary measures that are noted in the Exchange Hotel’s submission to the
Authority.
(vi) The Kent Hotel requests that each Review Condition be fully reviewed on its
merits. The Kent Hotel refers to and re-submits the previous submissions made by
Counsel for the Kent Hotel, Mr Tony Hatzis, during the course of the 2010 review.
(vii) The Kent Hotel is not a Schedule 4 declared premises. None of the prosecutions
that were brought by Police or the Director General against the licensee of the
Kent Hotel during 2009 or 2010 have resulted in any convictions.
(viii) The Kent Hotel notes the Director General’s June 2011 decision in relation to a
disturbance complaint brought by Wollongong Police. The Director General found
in that matter that imposing a lockout upon that precinct would be a
“disproportionate response”.
(ix) The Kent Hotel proposes that Review Condition 7, imposing a lockout, should be
removed to allow the Kent Hotel to voluntarily apply its previous lockout of 1.30
am.
(x) The Kent Hotel has seen “no evidence” as to why Hamilton should have a
different lockout to the lockout that is in effect for late trading hotels in the
Newcastle CBD, when that area’s problems are “substantially worse” than in
Hamilton.
(xi) The Kent Hotel contests the relevance of Police COPS Report E42406151 (7
February 2010) which involved a domestic violence incident that occurred 12
months ago.
(xii) The Kent Hotel contests the relevance of COPS Report E45870005 (11 October
2011) which concerns a “trouble making” individual who deceived security staff
to gain repeated access and was immediately removed upon detection.
(xiii) The Kent Hotel contests the relevance of COPS Report E397965091 (14 October
2011) which did not occur at the Hotel but occurred “in view of the Hotel”.
(xiv) The Kent Hotel contests the relevance of COPS Report E45026610 (24
September 2011) where the offender was in possession of a drug and “slightly
affected” by alcohol. This is “in no way connected with the quiet and good order
of the neighbourhood”.
98. On the merits of the Police Proposal, Mr Jenkins submits that:
(i) Review Condition 1, requiring maintenance of the Plan of Management that was
submitted within 30 days of the Review Decision, is no longer required because
the Hotel has subsequently been required to prepare and maintain a “Precinct
Safety Assessment” pursuant to the PLA that was declared in February 2011.
– 24 –
(ii) Review Condition 2, requiring the preparation of six monthly compliance audits
by a suitably qualified independent person, should either be removed from the
licence or, as suggested by Police, imposed as a requirement across the PLA.
(iii) Review Condition 3, requiring the use of RSA Marshalls after 11 pm on Friday and
Saturday evenings, is accepted by the Kent Hotel but the Kent Hotel submits that
this requirement would be better imposed as a requirement across the PLA.
(iv) Review Condition 4, restricting the type and quantity of alcoholic drinks that may
be served to any individual patron after 10 pm on Friday and Saturday evenings,
should be varied so that these restrictions commence at midnight. The Kent
submits that this would be appropriate because the Kent Hotel is required to and
has engaged an RSA Marshall from 11 pm on those nights. The Kent Hotel further
notes that, in the Director General’s June 2011 decision regarding the Wollongong
entertainment precinct, the Director General imposed drink restrictions that
commenced from 1.30 am when determining that disturbance complaint.
(v) Review Condition 5, which prescribes that certain “orderly precinct
requirements”be observed by the Affected Hotels, should be varied so as to
retain only the requirement that licensees make available water stations and
provide appropriate signage regarding the Affected Hotels’ licence conditions.
The Kent Hotel rejects the need for and the efficacy of a requirement to submit
monthly reports to the Local Liquor Accord on any excluded patrons as required
by Review Condition 5(i).
(vi) Review Condition 6, which prohibits the stockpiling of more than two
unconsumed drinks by any individual customer, should be removed from the
licence because drink stockpiling will be dealt with by the Kent Hotel’s staff and
its RSA Marshall.
(vii) Review Condition 7, requiring the observance of a lockout at 1 am, should be
removed from the licence. In addition to endorsing the comments of the
Exchange Hotel, the Kent Hotel submits that this condition places pressure on taxi
services and creates friction among patrons waiting for taxis.
(viii) Review Condition 8, regarding the observance of certain pre-closure procedures
30 minutes before closing, should be removed because hotel staff members are
trained to implement pre closure procedures. This condition effectively reduces
the Hotel’s trading time by 30 minutes (in that liquor service must cease) without
providing any benefit for the community.
(ix) Review Condition 9, requiring the performance of one daily rubbish collection
between close of trade and 7 am, should be removed and dealt with as part of
the PLA process.
(x) Review Condition 10, regarding dispersal of patrons, should be removed and dealt
with as part of the Patron Safety Assessment process under the PLA.
(xi) Review Condition 11 should be removed from the licence. This condition requires
the Affected Hotels to inform all staff and security contractors of the Review
– 25 –
Conditions, RSA measures, transport options, the 50 metre vicinity prescribed by
the Act for excluded persons, and the location of Alcohol Free Zones in the area.
The Kent Hotel submits that this requirement would be better dealt with as part
of the Patron Safety Assessment process that is provided for by the PLA.
Summary of Hamilton Station and Northern Star Hotel Submissions in response to the Police
Proposal
99. The key points made by Mr Paul O’Sullivan of O’Sullivan Saddington Solicitors on behalf of his two
clients are as follows:
(i) The four graphs presented by Police in their submission of 9 November 2011 do
not support the contention that the imposition of the Review Conditions in
August 2010 has resulted in a reduction in alcohol related harm and that the
amendment of the Review Conditions would result in an increase in that harm.
(ii) Of the graphs provided by Police in response to the Authority’s request for
clarification of the Police position, only one graph entitled “Alcohol Related
Assaults in Hamilton each month on Friday and Saturday nights from 10.00pm to
6.00 am” is remotely relevant. It purports to record a drop in assaults in the
category “out of doors or in licensed premises” of 0.9 per month since the
imposition of the Conditions.
(iii) On this data, Mr O’Sullivan submits that:





the period identified before the imposition of the Review Conditions was
3 years and the period identified after the imposition of the Review
Conditions is 13 months;
“no causative connection” has been established between the overall
drop in assaults and the Affected Hotels;
the Police category “out of doors or in licensed premises” does not
specify where these assaults actually occurred on or in relation to the
Affected Hotels;
there are late trading premises in Hamilton other than the Affected
Hotels; and
the data apparently includes assaults that are not related to any
particular licensed premises.
(iv) “Little or no weight” should be given to the Police submission that the imposition
of the Review Conditions upon the licensed premises within Hamilton has
accelerated the decline in assaults in that suburb.
(v) Police “do not oppose” the deletion of the Review Conditions requiring
compliance audits, monthly reports of disorderly patrons and rubbish collection.
(vi) It is “artificial” for Police to rely upon data pertaining to the Newcastle CBD in
support of their case as to what regulatory action should be taken in Hamilton.
Licence conditions across those two areas are not consistent.
– 26 –
(vii) Following the imposition of licence conditions in the Newcastle CBD there was a
“significant displacement” of alcohol related harm from the Newcastle CBD to
Hamilton.
(viii) NSW Health’s submission that removing the Review Conditions represents a
considerable risk to the health and well-being of the community is based upon
the fact of the 2009 disturbance complaint, the fact that Hamilton was included in
the NSW Government’s “Hassle Free Nights” program and the fact that one venue
in Hamilton is a Schedule 4 venue. Mr O’Sullivan submits that:

there is an absence of any evidence specifically relating to the Affected
Hotels contained in the NSW Health submission;

NSW Health’s reliance upon what has happened in the Newcastle CBD
should be given “little weight” when the Authority considers the
circumstances in Hamilton; and

NSW Health’s submissions do not address the particular Review
Conditions that are in issue.
(ix) With regard to the Resident Complainant’s submission, Mr O’Sullivan questions
whether Mr Brown has actually been authorised to make submissions on behalf
of the Resident Complainant. In response to what Mr Brown has written, Mr
O’Sullivan submits that:

there is no evidence provided by Mr Brown of undue disturbance caused
by the Affected Hotels in that submission;

there are no submissions made by Mr Brown on the specific Review
Conditions under consideration; and

this submission makes a “flawed comparison” to the very different
circumstances prevailing in the NSW town of Gunnedah.
(x) Mr O’Sullivan advises that he is “unaware” of the Resident Complainant having
made any further complaints against the Affected Hotels since the 2009
disturbance complaint.
100. On the merits of the Police Proposal, the Hamilton Station and Northern Star Hotels position is as
follows:
(i) They do not object to Review Condition 1, requiring maintenance of the Plan of
Management, being made permanent.
(ii) They seek the removal of Review Condition 2, requiring six monthly compliance
audits, arguing that:

Police “do not object” to the removal of this condition (the Authority
notes that the Police position is that this requirement could be imposed
– 27 –
through the mechanism of the PLA in the alternative to imposing it as a
condition);

The wording of this condition is “vague” and its benefit is outweighed by
its administrative cost; and

Compliance with the Plan of Management (Review Condition 1) will in
any event be policed by NSW Police and OLGR compliance officers and
this condition is unnecessary.
(iii) They do not object to Review Condition 3, requiring the use of RSA monitors after
11pm on Friday and Saturday, being made permanent.
(iv) They request that Review Condition 4, which restricts the quantity and type of
drinks that may be served to any individual patron after 10pm on Friday and
Saturday evenings, be varied so that it instead operates from midnight.
(v) They submit that Review Condition 4 also be varied to remove the limitation upon
the number of drinks that may be purchased by any single customer because it is
“impractical” and does not prevent a patron from actually engaging in multiple
purchases, while the risk of intoxication is better addressed by other Review
Conditions that are not objected to.
(vi) They seek the removal of Review Condition 5(i) requiring the provision of monthly
reports to the Local Liquor Accord regarding persons excluded from the premises,
because this requirement imposes “significant administrative costs” that are not
justified by any benefits that may flow to the community. These reports are not
actually being circulated among the Affected Hotels and no benefits arise from
each of the Affected Hotels having to report to the Local Liquor Accord.
(vii) They seek the removal of Review Condition 5 (ii) and (iii) regarding entry and
removal requirements because these sub-conditions are “onerous”. A refusal
period of 6 hours for troublesome persons is “excessive” and the condition
requires hotel staff to make assessments of the behaviour of other persons.
(viii) They seek the removal of Review Condition 5(iii), which prohibits patrons from
taking away liquor from the premises after 10 pm, because both of these hotels
operate restaurants and their customers may want to take an unfinished bottle of
liquor home with them from the premises. They further submit that neither Police
nor the Resident Complainant has provided any evidence to justify the imposition
of this sub condition.
(ix) They do not object to the permanent imposition of Review Condition 5(iv),
requiring appropriate signage of entry conditions, nor Review Condition 5(v),
requiring the provision of free water stations, nor the imposition of Review
Condition 5(vii), requiring signage encouraging respect for the neighbours.
(x) They seek the removal of Review Condition 6, regarding the stock piling of drinks,
because the Condition is vaguely worded. Concerns regarding intoxication are
– 28 –
better addressed by RSA procedures and the other restrictions that are contained
in those Review Conditions to which these hotels do not object.
(xi) They seek the removal of Review Condition 7, regarding a 1 am lockout, noting
that Schedule 4 imposes a lockout upon declared premises that commences at 2
am and that a 1 am commencement time for a lockout is “unreasonable” and
“without justification”.
(xii) They note that the lockout commences 30 minutes earlier than the lockout that
applies to late trading licensed premises in the Newcastle CBD. Furthermore, in
the Authority’s 2011 review decision regard the Wollongong entertainment
precinct, the Authority “declined to impose a lockout despite what appeared to
be a significantly higher level of assaults”. (The Authority notes that, while the
Director General declined to impose a lockout in Wollongong, the review
conducted by the Authority was confined to the issue of whether a condition
imposed by the Director General restricting the service of certain drinks after 1
am should apply to the Hotel Illawarra.)
(xiii) They do not object to the permanent imposition of Review Conditions 8, 10 and
11.
(xiv) They seek variation of Review Condition 9 requiring a rubbish collection to
remove the words “and roads” but otherwise do not object to that Condition
becoming permanent.
No response from the Gateway Hotel
101. Notwithstanding consultation by the Authority, the Gateway Hotel has elected not to provide
any response to the Police Proposal or the Authority’s communications.
JURISDICTION
102. The Authority has made this decision pursuant to its condition making powers under section 53
of the Act which states (relevantly):
53 Authority may impose, vary or revoke licence conditions
(1) Without limiting any other provision of this Act, the Authority may at any time:
(a) on application by the Director-General or the Commissioner of Police, or
(b) on the Authority’s own initiative,
impose conditions on a licence.
(1A) The conditions that may be imposed by the Authority on a licence under this section
include, but are not limited to, conditions:
(a) prohibiting the sale or supply of liquor on the licensed premises before 10 am or after
11 pm (or both), and
(b) restricting the trading hours of, and public access to, the licensed premises
– 29 –
103. Some parts of the submissions of the Affected Hotels, particularly those made by the Kent Hotel
and the Exchange Hotel, question whether the Affected Hotels should be found to be causing
“undue disturbance” to the neighbourhood and/or seek to re-open the Authority’s findings of
undue disturbance that were made in the Review Decision.
104. The Authority’s Review Decision and its rationale for finding that the Affected Hotels were
causing undue disturbance were set out in some detail in the Review Decision. The Authority does
not propose to revisit those findings nor is it now conducting a fresh inquiry as to whether the
Affected Hotels are individually or collectively causing “undue disturbance” to the quiet and good
order of the neighbourhood within the meaning of section 79 of the Act.
105. Rather, the Authority is presently exercising its power to impose, of its own initiative, 11 licence
conditions under section 53(1)(b) of the Act. It has been prompted to consider the exercise of this
power by the Police Proposal.
106. While the previous findings of the Authority in the Review Decision remain relevant by way of
understanding the background to the imposition of the Review Conditions, the question now
before the Authority is whether it is reasonable and in the public interest to impose, at this time,
any of the 11 Review Conditions that Police submit should be imposed upon an ongoing basis.
107. The Police Proposal seeks the imposition of all of the Review Conditions upon a “permanent”
basis against the licences of all of the Affected Hotels. However, the Authority notes that any
condition imposed by the Authority will remain subject to variation or revocation by the Authority
under section 53 of the Act.
108. The proper characterisation of the Police Proposal is that 11 Review Conditions (which were
imposed for a fixed period of 15 months from 20 August 2011) should now be re-imposed on an
ongoing basis - that is, without any express expiry date.
109. The Authority has made this decision informed by the objects and considerations stated under
section 3 of the Act and with the benefit of all of the submissions before the Authority. As
indicated in the Authority’s letter to Police dated 30 November 2011 (the contents of which were
repeated in the Supplementary Police Submission, for the benefit of the Affected Hotels) the
Authority is also concerned with the more current alcohol related crime data disclosed in the 2010
BOCSAR crime report for the Newcastle LGA.
Review Condition 1 – Maintenance of a Plan of Management
110. While the Sydney Junction, Hamilton Station and Northern Star Hotels agree to this condition
being imposed upon the licences as an ongoing requirement, the Exchange and Kent Hotels argue
that the condition duplicates the requirements of the Newcastle/Hamilton PLA, which requires the
Affected Hotels to maintain “Precinct Safety Plans”.
111. While there may be some overlap between the subject matter addressed by a hotel’s Precinct
Safety Plan and its Plan of Management, the Authority does not accept that Review Condition 1
and the Precinct Safety Plan serve the same purpose.
112. Review Condition 1 requires the Affected Hotels to develop and maintain those plans for the
management of their business that they were required to prepare, in consultation with Police, and
file with the OLGR Director of Compliance within 30 days of the Review Decision.
– 30 –
113. A Plan of Management is a comprehensive plan for the operation of a licensed business. By
contrast, a Precinct Safety Plan need only address those “strategies”, “issues”, “mechanisms” and
other matters that are specified in the PLA that mainly concern the interface between the licensed
business and the safety of the wider entertainment precinct.
114. The Authority is satisfied that it is in the public interest for the Affected Hotels to remain
required to maintain, on an ongoing basis, those Plans of Management that they were required to
file with OLGR after the Review Decision.
115. The Authority has decided to impose Review Condition 1 but, to avoid doubt, the wording of
New Condition 1 has been amended so that it does not require the Affected Hotels to develop new
Plans of Management – rather, they must maintain, as a condition of their licence, the existing
Plans they have previously submitted to the Director of Compliance, unless and until amended in
accordance with the condition.
116. Review Condition in its modified form is now New Condition 1 noted at the commencement of
this Authority Paper.
Review Conditions 2 and 5(i).
117. The Affected Hotels have submitted and the Authority accepts that neither Police nor the
compliance section of OLGR has shown any interest in following up on the Affected Hotels’
compliance with Review Condition 2, which requires the preparation of six monthly compliance
audits by an appropriately qualified person and submission of the same to the coordinator of the
Local Liquor Accord, or Review Condition 5(i), which requires the submission of monthly reports to
the Local Liquor Accord providing details of all persons excluded from their respective premises.
118. These reporting requirements, initially imposed by the Director General’s delegate during 2009
and confirmed by the Authority in the Review Decision, were in the public interest to impose in
the immediate context of findings that the Affected Hotels were causing disturbance to the quiet
and good order of the neighbourhood.
119. Review Condition 2 compelled licensees to focus closely upon their compliance practices while
Review Condition 5(i) compelled them to regularly share intelligence with the Local Liquor Accord
regarding any persons excluded from their premises.
120. Nevertheless, the Authority accepts that these requirements pose an additional administrative
burden upon the licensees. In the case of Review Condition 2 the licensees must arrange for an
independent party to prepare the required audits. This is likely to impose some cost to the
licensees, albeit a cost that has not been quantified in any of the Affected Hotels’ submissions,.
121. While Police have argued that these two reporting requirements are consistent with
community’s expectations of licensed premises and, in the alternative, will provide Police with a
useful source of information for compliance purposes, it is difficult for the Authority to accept that
it now remains in the public interest to require the licensees to observe, on an ongoing basis,
these additional reporting requirements when, on the material before the Authority, the Authority
is satisfied that Police have not followed up or made use of this information (save for the
preparation of the Police Proposal in November and December 2011) since the time of the Review
Decision.
– 31 –
122. The Authority has decided that it is not in the public interest to impose Review Conditions 2 or
5(i) on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, these obligations ceased effect as of 27 March 2012.
Review Conditions 3, 4, 5(ii)-(vii), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11
123. In the Authority’s view these conditions comprise a package of substantial harm minimisation
measures aimed at:





reducing the risk of patrons becoming intoxicated as the premises approach late trading;
preventing the entry of persons who have been pre-fuelling or observed to have been
troublesome or violent;
preventing the stockpiling of unconsumed drinks;
reducing late night patron migration between licensed premises; and
reducing the impact of Hotel patrons upon the amenity of the community after these
patrons have departed the Affected Hotels – particularly early in the morning when the
Affected Hotels cease trading for the day.
124. These are not merely “managerial” or “bureaucratic” measures, aimed at requiring the licensees
to reflect upon or improve their internal processes or reporting systems, but mandatory measures
designed to have a meaningful impact upon the manner in which all of these significant late
trading enterprises (and their patrons) impact the locality, particularly during peak trading times of
Friday and Saturday evening.
125. Notwithstanding the interrelationship between these conditions, the Authority has considered all
of the Review Conditions on their merits, informed by the submissions. It is satisfied that it is in
the public interest to impose the following conditions upon the licences of all of the Affected
Hotels upon an ongoing basis.
Review Condition 3 – requirement to use RSA Marshalls after 11 pm on Friday and Saturday
evening
126. The Authority notes that there is no real opposition among the Affected Hotels to this aspect of
the Police Proposal. The Authority considers this licence condition to be a reasonable and
substantial harm minimisation measure to impose upon each of these late trading hotels that
operate within a busy entertainment precinct. The condition only applies during the higher risk
periods of Friday and Saturday evening after 11 pm. During these busy periods it becomes
relatively difficult for bar staff and security staff to monitor intoxication levels among patrons on
premises. Notwithstanding that this measure comes at some cost in terms of a staffing
requirement, that impost is justified in light of the assistance a designated RSA Marshall can offer
a licensee and the security staff when monitoring intoxication levels on the premises.
Review Condition 4 – drink restrictions on premises after 10pm on Friday and Saturday evening
127. The Police Proposal seeks that the requirements of this condition be imposed across the licences
of the Affected Hotels. The Exchange, Hamilton Station and Northern Star Hotels submit that the
paragraph within this condition restricting individual purchases to 4 drinks per person or the
contents of 1 bottle of wine should be removed. These Hotels submit that these drink restrictions
should start at midnight, not 10 pm. The Sydney Junction Hotel does not object to these
restrictions.
– 32 –
128. The imposition of drink restrictions after 10 pm is, in the Authority’s view, a proactive measure
aimed at reducing intoxication levels among the patrons of all the Affected Hotels by restricting
the strength, quantity and number of alcoholic drinks that may be served as the premises
approach the commencement of late trading.
129. Late trading hotels are at a relatively higher risk of having higher levels of intoxication by reason
that patrons are able to remain on premises well into the early hours of the morning. They may
well be tired and/or have consumed alcohol over a prolonged period, whether at the same
premises or at other locations before arriving at the late trading hotel in question.
130. The imposition of alcoholic drink restrictions does not guarantee that no patron will be unable to
drink enough to become intoxicated. In practice hotel staff will be required to monitor intoxication
levels among patrons. Nevertheless, the Authority is satisfied that drink restrictions of this kind
will make the rapid purchase of liquor less convenient than would otherwise be the case and these
measures will help to slow down the consumption of alcohol by individual patrons.
131. The Authority notes that these measures will only apply on the higher risk nights of Friday and
Saturday when higher numbers of patrons are likely to be present, increasing the difficulty for
busy staff to actually monitor and respond to intoxication levels before patrons get to the point
where they become troublesome or have to be asked to leave.
132. The Authority accepts that drink restrictions in the form of Review Condition 4 are inconvenient
to the licensees in that they limit the amount of alcoholic drinks that may otherwise be sold. The
Authority accepts that these restrictions will come at some cost to licensees - although no
economic loss has been quantified or even estimated in the Affected Hotels’ submissions. Placing
these restrictions in perspective, the Affected Hotels will still be able to sell a wide range of
alcoholic drinks after 10 pm.
133. The Authority accepts the contention made by the Hamilton Station and Northern Star Hotels
that restrictions on the number or type of drinks per customer that may be served will cause some
inconvenience to larger groups attending the Affected Hotels on Friday and Saturday evenings.
134. Some degree of patron inconvenience is an inevitable consequence of a licence condition that is
designed to make the purchase of larger quantities or higher strength liquor less amenable to
patrons after 10pm on these higher risk evenings.
135. The Hamilton Station, Northern Star, Kent and Exchange Hotels have correctly noted that similar
restrictions to those specified in Review Condition 4 have been imposed by Parliament by way of
special licence conditions prescribed by Schedule 4 for those “declared premises” that are listed
under that Schedule. These are premises with respect to which 12 or more incidents of violence on
premises have been recorded during the preceding 12 months’ period.
136. The Authority is satisfied that none of the Affected Hotels is a declared premises at the time of
this decision.
137. By comparison to Review Condition 4, the Schedule 4 restrictions commence at midnight. The
Hamilton Station and Northern Star Hotels propose an alternative commencement time of
midnight for a modified version of these drink restrictions. The Kent Hotel also submits that the
drink restrictions should not commence until midnight, to achieve parity with the commencement
time prescribed by the Act for declared premises.
– 33 –
138. The Authority notes that it not legally inconsistent with the Act for the Authority to exercise its
condition making powers under section 53 of the Act to impose drink restrictions upon the
licences of the Affected Hotels that commence earlier than midnight.
139. The Authority considers that it is reasonable and in the public interest, in the context of what is
known about the Hamilton entertainment precinct, to impose ongoing drink restrictions
commencing at 10 pm, consistently across the licences of the Affected Hotels, as proposed by
Police.
140. Review Condition 4 forms part of a package of harm minimisation measures that the Authority is
satisfied has made a positive impact upon recorded levels of alcohol related disturbance in the
suburb of Hamilton. The Authority accepts, as submitted by the Affected Hotels and recognised by
Police, that good management has also played a role in reducing the recorded levels of alcohol
related disturbance in Hamilton – but the Authority considers that the mandatory imposition of
this package of licence conditions, including Review Condition 4, has provided a strong and
consistent framework around which good management has been delivered across the Affected
Hotels.
141. Review Condition 4 is now New Condition 3, as noted at the commencement of this letter.
Review Condition 5 (ii) to (vii) – orderly precinct requirements
142. The imposition of restrictions on the admission of persons who have been observed by hotel
staff drinking in Alcohol Free Zones or acting in a violent or quarrelsome manner during the
previous 6 hour period is an obligation that is, in the Authority’s view, a clearly expressed
requirement that staff will be able to understand and implement.
143. The condition is designed to discourage the practice of pre-fuelling among prospective patrons of
each of the Affected Hotels. The Authority does not consider this to be an unreasonable or
unwarranted requirement as it only requires the exclusion of those persons who have been
actually observed by staff and security contractors to have been engaging in this misconduct.
144. Part of the problems that gave rise to the Authority’s finding of undue disturbance in the Review
Decision was the practice of street drinking and pre-fuelling in the vicinity of the Affected Hotels.
The Affected Hotels have acknowledged during the 2010 disturbance complaint that street
drinking was an issue for the precinct, albeit one that is beyond the control of the hoteliers.
145. While the Sydney Junction Hotel is correct to submit that it is primarily the responsibility of
Police and Council compliance officers to enforce Alcohol Free Zones, it is not unreasonable for
hotel staff, in the interests of discouraging alcohol related misbehaviour by prospective patrons in
the vicinity of their hotels, to deny them access.
146. The Authority accepts that denying entry to the Affected Hotels will cause disappointment and
frustration to prospective patrons. That is the purpose of this requirement. The Authority has no
sympathy for persons who choose to drink in Alcohol Free Zones before seeking entry to licensed
premises, nor those who act in a violent or quarrelsome manner before seeking entry to licensed
premises.
147. The observance of this condition sends a message to prospective patrons that those who engage
in this conduct in the vicinity of an Affected Hotel will be denied entry to the Affected Hotel. The
Sydney Junction Hotel is correct to observe that this condition will not address those who choose
– 34 –
to “pre-fuel” out of sight of hotel staff, but the requirement is principally designed to address the
problem of street drinking or misbehaving within the vicinity of the Affected Hotels.
148. The Authority accepts that the prohibition against take away liquor after 10pm will cause some
loss of business to the Affected Hotels (albeit a loss that has not been quantified in the
submissions). To a lesser extent some inconvenience may be caused to patrons at hotel bistros
who wish to take away liquor from the premises. Notwithstanding these impacts, the Authority
considers it in the public interest to impose this restriction on an ongoing basis, in order to
continue to reduce the availability of take away liquor later in the evening to those who may
otherwise choose to purchase take away liquor for consumption in the vicinity of the Affected
Hotels whether for the purpose of pre-fuelling before attending those hotels or for the purpose of
street drinking elsewhere in the precinct.
149. The Authority is satisfied that the Affected Hotels comprise nearly all of the major late trading
licensed businesses in Hamilton. While the Affected Hotels are correct to submit that they are not
the only sources of take away liquor in Hamilton, the Authority is satisfied that each of the
Affected Hotels is likely to draw persons to the vicinity of each Affected Hotel during the late
evening and early morning. If they are each required to observe this condition there will not only
be an individual benefit to each licensed business but an incidental benefit to the precinct as a
whole from discouraging public drinking related misconduct occurring within the vicinity of each
licensed premises.
150. With regard to the Exchange Hotel’s comment that the Alcohol Free Zones in Hamilton are
“poorly signposted”, this allegation has not been particularised or substantiated with supporting
evidence but the Authority will, out of caution, provide a copy of this decision to the General
Manager of Newcastle City Council and bring this concern to Council’s attention.
151. Review Condition 5 (ii) – (vii) is now New Condition 4 (i)-(vi) respectively, as noted at the
commencement of this letter.
Review Condition 6 – prohibition against stockpiling drinks
152. The Authority has considered the submissions of the Kent and Exchange Hotels who argue that
the prevention of drink stockpiling is a matter that is best left to hotel staff. The Authority has also
considered the submissions of the Hamilton and Northern Star Hotels that the condition is
“vaguely worded” and should be removed for that reason.
153. The Authority is satisfied that it is reasonable and in the public interest to impose this
requirement across the licences of the Affected Hotels, as proposed by Police.
154. While the Authority accepts that the prevention of drink stockpiling is, in practice, reliant upon
the vigilance of staff, imposing this licence condition will compel the licensees and their staff to
focus upon this aspect of their patrons’ behaviour. It also enables staff to respond better to
arguments from patrons when staff prevent stockpiling. Staff can point to the condition as a legal
requirement for their preventive actions.
155. The prohibition against stockpiling helps to stymie those customers who may attempt to get
around the limitation upon the service of drinks to individual patrons after 10 pm. The prohibition
more generally serves to avoid the rapid and/or excessive consumption of liquor and/or the
participation of patrons in drinking games and the like. The condition offers the incidental benefit
– 35 –
of improving safety at these late trading premises by reducing the number of glass drinking vessels
in the proximity of any individual patron.
156. The Authority is satisfied that the condition is sufficiently clear in its terms for staff to understand
what this requirement actually entails.
157. Review Condition 6 is now New Condition 5 as noted at the commencement of this letter.
Review Condition 7 – the 1 am lockout
158. The Police Proposal seeks that a condition requiring a 1am lockout on Saturday and Sunday
mornings be imposed on an ongoing basis. The Authority notes that this is clearly the most
contentious aspect of the Police Proposal and all five of the Affected Hotels who have made
submissions to the Authority for the purposes of this decision oppose this requirement.
159. The Kent and Exchange Hotels submit that it was unfair, inconsistent or without justification for
the Authority to have imposed, in the Review Decision, a condition requiring a lockout that takes
effect 30 minutes earlier than the lockout that applies to late trading hotels in the Newcastle CBD.
They maintain that view in their submissions in response to the Police Proposal.
160. The Northern Star and Hamilton Station Hotels submit that it is inappropriate to impose a
lockout that commences earlier than the 2 am lockout that is prescribed by Schedule 4 of the Act
as a special licence condition for “declared premises” under that Schedule. The Sydney Junction
Hotel submits that, while it is not against lockouts per se, it would prefer that their use remain in
the hands of the hoteliers and not be prescribed inflexibly by a licence condition.
161. The licensee of the Sydney Junction Hotel, Mr Norberry, observes in his submissions that the 1
am lockout has diminished the “vibrancy” of the Hamilton entertainment precinct, as people no
longer move from venue to venue late in the evening as they previously did. Rather, they tend to
rush to their preferred venue before the 1 am lockout takes effect.
162. Mr Norberry advises that the conditions imposed by the Authority in the Review Decision,
including the lockout, have caused his hotel to shed “the equivalent of five full time positions”. He
believes that other Affected Hotels have also shed staff too. (The Authority notes that none of the
other Affected Hotels has estimated, in the latest submissions, any losses that have flowed from
the lockout in either raw revenue terms or by reference to numbers of staff laid off.)
163. The Authority accepts that the lockout has impacted the vibrancy of the Hamilton entertainment
precinct during late trading hours. The purpose of the condition was to reduce late night patron
migration and the Authority is satisfied, based upon the submissions of the Sydney Junction Hotel
and those of Police, that the lockout has been having the desired effect of reducing late night
patron migration throughout the precinct.
164. The Authority accepts the submission made by several of the Affected Hotels, as it did when
making the Review Decision, that the rates of assaults in Hamilton are considerably below the
rates in the Newcastle CBD. This much was apparent from the research of Jones et al (2009) which
compared recorded assault rates in the Newcastle CBD with those in the “control” entertainment
precinct of Hamilton.
165. However, the Authority notes that the type of alcohol related disturbance that gave rise to the
imposition of the lockout in Hamilton encompassed a broad spectrum of anti-social behaviour. The
– 36 –
Police complaint was not simply based upon alcohol related assaults. There was a great deal of
documentary and audio visual evidence and other material provided by Police and OLGR
compliance officers of disorderly conduct including street drinking, public urination, swearing,
yelling and littering by persons who were drawn to the precinct during late trading hours by the
operation of the Affected Hotels.
166. The Authority considers that conduct of this kind is more likely than not to return to Hamilton if
the lockout is removed, as once again patrons will be drawn in large numbers in the early hours of
Saturday and Sunday mornings by reason of the availability of this close cluster of late trading
hotels. They will once again be able to migrate from venue to venue after 1 am on Saturday and
Sunday mornings, during what is a high risk time for the occurrence of alcohol related assaults.
167. The Authority explained in the Review Decision that it imposed a 1am lockout by reason that a
1.30 lockout was already in place (albeit on a voluntary basis) at four of the six Affected Hotels and
the Authority considered that it was appropriate to take further regulatory action designed to tilt
the balance back in favour of residential amenity.
168. The Authority is satisfied, on the basis of the material now before it, that the lockout imposed
upon the licence of each of the Affected Hotels is contributing to a restoration of residential
amenity and this purpose is likely to be further achieved if a decision is now made to retain the
1am lockout, in combination with the other harm minimisation measures that the Authority has
decided to reimpose across the licences of all of the Affected Hotels.
169. It is not in dispute that there has been a 1.30 am lockout in force for late trading hotels in the
Newcastle CBD since 2008. The Authority notes that the Newcastle CBD is a separate
entertainment precinct located about 3kms away from the Hamilton entertainment precinct.
170. However, placing the Newcastle lockout in its historical context, the LAB had actually seen fit to
impose, at first instance, a lockout commencing at 1 am for certain late trading hotels in the
Newcastle CBD. This commencement time was only adjusted to 1.30 am after an appeal was filed
by numerous Newcastle licensees and Police decided not to defend the LAB decision. As disclosed
in the research of Jones et al (2009) the 1.30 am lockout was the product of an out of court
settlement.
171. While the Authority has considered the submissions of the Affected Hotels inviting comparison
with the use of a lockout in the Newcastle CBD and the lack of a lockout in Wollongong, the
Authority is not bound by a regulatory decision made by the LAB or the Director General with
regard to those respective precincts. These were separate decisions made by the respective
regulators on the basis of the material before them.
172. The Authority has made this decision on the basis of what is known about recent and current
alcohol related disturbance in Hamilton, the merits of the Police Proposal and the submissions in
reply to that proposal. The Authority’s concern has been to determine what regulatory action, if
any, is in the public interest for the Hamilton entertainment precinct.
173. The Authority accepts that the 1 am lockout will have an adverse economic impact upon the
Affected Hotels - particularly those that previously traded without observing a 1.30 am (voluntary)
lockout.
174. The Authority accepts that a lockout means that the licensed businesses will be unable to cater
for patrons who may otherwise have migrated to their premises after 1 am to spend money on
– 37 –
liquor and gaming services. This loss of business will, unfortunately, impact the number of staff
that will be employed by the Affected Hotels by comparison to a regulatory environment in which
no lockout is in effect. The Authority accepts that the Sydney Junction Hotel is able to employ
fewer staff than was the case when patron access to the premises was less regulated.
175. That said, the potential for economic loss arising from the imposition of a 1.00 am lockout across
the Affected Hotels must be placed in perspective. The Authority notes that, when the Affected
Hotels were asked to quantify the percentage of revenue that they derived at various times of day
for the purposes of the Review Decision, the proportion of revenue that was disclosed to have
been received after 1 am for the sample Saturdays and Sundays, while varying among the Affected
Hotels, was relatively minor. This is not surprising when four of the Affected Hotels were
voluntarily observing a lockout from 1.30 am.
176. Furthermore, a mandatory lockout is not the same as a condition reducing trading hours. It
enables a licensed business to continue to derive liquor and gaming revenue from those patrons
who are on the premises before 1 am until they choose to depart or the business closes for the
day.
177. The Authority has considered all of the objects and considerations that it is required to consider
under section 3 of the Act and has given weight to subsection 3(2)(a) of the Act, the need to
minimise harm associated with the misuse and abuse of liquor (including harm arising from
violence and other anti-social behaviour, and subsection 3(2)(c), the need to ensure that the sale,
supply and consumption of liquor contributes to, and does not detract from, the amenity of
community life. The Authority is satisfied that it is in the public interest to impose this condition
upon an ongoing basis.
178. Review Condition 7 is now New Condition 6, as noted at the commencement of this letter.
Review Condition 8 – mandatory pre-closure procedures
179. The Police Proposal seeks the imposition of this condition upon an ongoing basis. The
requirement to cease the provision of entertainment and the service of liquor 30 minutes before
closing (while continuing to maintain the availability of water and food on the premises) is, in the
Authority’s view, a reasonable measure aimed at removing the prospect that patrons may
continue drinking right up until the point of close of business, which may be very late in the
morning. While hoteliers may well adopt their own pre-closure practices in the absence of
regulation, a mandatory licence condition focusses the attention of management and staff upon
closure procedures that are clear and consistent across the Affected Hotels.
180. The Authority considers that signalling the approach of closing time and reminding patrons of
their responsibilities to those in the neighbourhood are reasonable requirements that it is in the
public interest to impose, on a consistent basis across the licences of the Affected Hotels. These
measures are particularly warranted given the recent history of neighbourhood disturbance
caused by patrons of the Affected Hotels and the ever-present potential for patrons leaving a
cluster of late trading hotels to exact a relatively greater adverse impact upon local amenity during
the early hours of the morning. The Authority is satisfied that it is in the public interest to impose
this condition upon an ongoing basis.
181. Review Condition 8 is now New Condition 7, as noted at the commencement of this letter.
Review Condition 9 - one garbage collection after close of trade each day
– 38 –
182. This condition arose out of a report prepared by OLGR compliance officers that was before the
Authority when it made the Review Decision. OLGR compliance officers had observed hotel
patrons and other persons drawn to the vicinity of the hotels causing litter to be left on the streets
of the precinct by way of discarded alcoholic drink containers and fast food packaging from food
purchased at nearby late night fast food vendors.
183. The Sydney Junction Hotel has advised that its staff will continue to clean up rubbish in the
vicinity of this hotel whether or not a licence condition is imposed. The Exchange Hotel takes issue
with the costs caused to business from having to observe this requirement and submits that it
does not provide a practical benefit for the community, or only benefits neighbouring commercial
premises.
184. The Kent Hotel opposes this condition and argues that it would be better dealt with by the PLA.
The Northern Star and Hamilton Station Hotels do not object to the ongoing imposition of this
licence condition but submit that it should not require hotels to clean the adjacent roads.
185. The Authority is satisfied that it is in the public interest to impose, on an ongoing basis, across
the licences of all the Affected Hotels, a requirement that they perform one garbage collection
between close of trade and 7 am each day in the same terms as Review Condition 9.
186. The Authority is satisfied that the locality as a whole benefits from Affected Hotels being
required to clean up to 10 metres from the perimeter of their premises, including any litter left on
the adjacent roads, to better ensure that any litter caused by persons moving to or from the
Affected Hotels is dealt with.
187. While the Authority accepts the Sydney Junction’s assurance that as a matter of good business
practice its staff will collect rubbish around the hotel, the Authority considers that it is the public
interest that all of the Affected Hotels be required to perform this clean up function to avoid the
precinct experiencing the type of alcohol related litter problems that were in evidence when the
Authority imposed Review Condition 9.
188. Police have suggested that, in the alternative to imposing this measure as a condition upon the
licences of the Affected Hotels only, that a litter collection requirement might be an appropriate
subject to address on a precinct wide basis through the mechanism of the Newcastle/Hamilton
PLA.
189. However, while the Authority notes that precinct liquor accords may potentially be used to
impose uniform requirements across licensed premises within an entertainment precinct, the
Authority does not have the power to introduce new requirements into the Newcastle/Hamilton
PLA at first instance and has been advised by the Director General on 1 February 2012 that the
Director General is not contemplating reopening the Newcastle/Hamilton PLA for the purposes of
the Police Proposal. Accordingly, the Authority finds that this part of the Police Proposal does not
represent an alternative regulatory option for the purposes of this decision.
190. Review Condition 9 is now New Condition 8, as noted at the commencement of this letter.
Review Condition 10 - dispersal of patrons on Friday and Saturday evenings
191. This part of the Police Proposal is largely supported or not opposed by the Affected Hotels,
although the Kent Hotel submits that it would be more appropriately imposed through the
– 39 –
mechanism of the PLA. For reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph, amending the PLA is
not an alternative that is open to the Authority. However, the Authority considers that this licence
condition is a sensible measure aimed at addressing the problem of late night loitering around the
Affected Hotels with an appropriate exception for those persons who are participating in secured
taxi ranks located near the Affected Hotels or those seeking the assistance of hotel staff from a
threat of harassment or violence. The Authority is satisfied that it is in the public interest to
impose this requirement on an ongoing basis.
192. Review Condition 10 is now New Condition 9, as noted at the commencement of this letter.
Review Condition 11 - provision of information to staff and contractors
193. This part of the Police Proposal is also largely supported or not opposed by the Affected Hotels,
although the Kent Hotel submits that it would be more appropriately imposed through the
mechanism of the PLA. For reasons previously mentioned, amending the PLA is not an alternative
that is open to the Authority. In any event, the Authority considers that this licence condition is an
important measure that supports the other conditions imposed by the Authority in the Review
Decision. It particularly supports measures requiring staff to deny entry to those persons observed
to have been acting in contravention of Alcohol Free Zones. An awareness of transport options will
also improve the safety and convenience of patrons and an awareness of the 50 metre vicinity of
the Hotel will enable staff and security contractors to better enforce, with the assistance of Police
if need be, the exclusion of persons from the vicinity.
194. Review Condition 11 is now New Condition 10, as noted at the commencement of this letter.
Further reasons for imposing the New Conditions consistently across the Affected Hotels
195. It is the view of Police that the Review Conditions have reduced the overall assault rates that
have been recorded by Police in Hamilton. Several of the Affected Hotels have argued that any
improvement in assault rates in Hamilton that has been recorded by Police is more likely to have
been the product of good management practices. The Authority notes that, in the Supplementary
Police Submission, Newcastle Police also acknowledge the role of good management practices as a
factor in the improving situation in Hamilton.
196. The Exchange Hotel submits that there is no evidence that any of the Review Conditions have
actually caused the recorded reduction in assaults, while the Hamilton Station and Northern Star
Hotels submit that the Police assault data on declining overall assault rates in Hamilton are of only
limited assistance when determining whether the Review Conditions have caused the reported
reduction in assaults in Hamilton or whether the removal of those conditions will lead to an
increase in assaults.
197. The BOCSAR data for the Newcastle LGA for 2010 provides some troubling crime statistics for
alcohol related crime across that LGA as a whole. The LGA experienced 572 incidents of nondomestic violence assaults during the course of that year, at a rate of 924.6 incidents per 100,000
persons, ranking 13th out of all 141 LGAs in New South Wales for this offence category.
198. BOCSAR assesses the occurrence of this offence within the LGA as “stable” over a 24 months’
trend and down 5.5% over a 60 months’ trend. The rate of occurrence of this offence was 872.2
per 100,000 persons for 2009 (with a total of 1431 incidents), 885.7 per 100,000 persons for 2008
(with 1350 incidents) and 1,013.5 per 100,000 persons for 2007 (with 1530 incidents).
– 40 –
199. 51.9% of all non-domestic violence related assaults in the Newcastle LGA for 2010 were flagged
by Police as having been “alcohol related”. The rate of alcohol related non domestic violence
assault in the Newcastle LGA during 2010 was one of the highest in the State, at 480 per 100,000
persons.
200. Within the Newcastle LGA, the Newcastle CBD was the locus of the greatest concentration of non
domestic violence related assaults, but the second most extensive high, low and medium density
“hotspot” disclosed in the BOCSAR 2010 crime maps for the LGA is an area that encompasses the
entertainment precinct in which the Affected Hotels are located. A further 2010 crime map depicts
a similar area as being the locus of high, medium and low concentration of the occurrence of
alcohol related assaults. Once again, Hamilton is the second most significant area for the
concentration of these offences to the Newcastle CBD within the wider LGA.
201. The data provided in the Initial Police Submission track the overall rate of assaults in Hamilton on
Friday and Saturday evenings. While the monthly assault figures fluctuate from month to month,
the Authority is satisfied that the number of all assaults occurring in Hamilton between 10 pm and
6 am the next day have been steadily declining since peaking in late 2008.
202. The Initial Police Submission data satisfy the Authority that between 1 am and 6 am on Saturday
and Sunday mornings overall assaults in Hamilton have declined since a recent peak in the latter
half of 2008, although this trend line has in the most recent months started to rise very slightly.
203. In the Supplementary Police Submission, Police have broken down their Hamilton assault
statistics by several location categories. The data show that, while assaults occurring within the
Police category of “residential premises” have remained stable before and after the imposition of
the Review Conditions, assaults recorded as occurring in the category which encompasses both
assaults occurring on licensed premises and assaults occurring “out of doors” have declined
significantly.
204. While the “out of doors” category noted in the Police data does not differentiate between
incidents where the participants are connected to any licensed premises and those incidents with
no such connection, this data further support an inference that licensing restrictions may be
having some positive impact upon the overall assault rate.
205. Furthermore, Police have provided the Authority with a bundle of COPS Reports of alcohol
related disturbance incidents linked by Police to each of the Affected Hotels during the period
from September 2010 to November 2011. Most of these incidents satisfy the Authority that
patrons of each of the Affected Hotels are continuing to be involved, either as perpetrators or
victims, in assault or other disturbance incidents, after last drinking at an Affected Hotel.
206. This material satisfies the Authority that there is an objective and reasonable nexus to the
conduct of patrons of the Affected Hotels, albeit one in which the patrons of some Affected Hotels
feature more prominently than others. It is noted that many of these incidents involve Affected
Hotel patrons in “out of doors” locations – that is, not on the actual licensed premises, but in other
public places after leaving an Affected Hotel.
207. As Police have noted, research by Jones et al “The Impact of Restricted Availability on Alcoholrelated Violence in Newcastle” (Crime and Justice Bulletin, November 2009) has identified a strong
association between the imposition of a similar set of licence restrictions to the Review Conditions
in the Newcastle CBD and an overall decline in reported alcohol related assault rates. The
Authority notes that the LAB decision was more stringent than the Authority’s intervention in that
– 41 –
it also included a winding back of trading hours - albeit from relatively later hours than those
observed by most of the Affected Hotels.
208. In the Authority’s view, this research provides support for the proposition that the imposition of
a package of licence conditions (similar to the Review Conditions) across the licences of late
trading hotels in an entertainment precinct may be expected to have a positive impact upon the
rate of alcohol related assault rates in that precinct.
209. While not all late trading venues in Hamilton will be subject to this decision, the Affected Hotels
comprise nearly all of the late trading hotels in Hamilton and all of the hotels that have been of
regulatory concern to local Police in terms of their potential to adversely impact the locality.
210. The Authority notes a comment from the BOCSAR report that has been emphasised by the
Exchange Hotel:
“we cannot say for certain that it was the reduction in trading hours, the lockout, the
other restrictions or simply better management practices that produced the effect.”
211. It is correct that the authors of that research do not profess to identify, with certainty, what the
cause of the observed reduction in alcohol related assault rates in the Newcastle CBD was. The
authors further note that the imposition of licence conditions by the LAB coincided with other
regulatory action – including the establishment of the Alcohol and Licensing Enforcement
Command at NSW Police, and a declaration by the NSW Premier in October 2008 of a list of the
State’s most violent premises that would become subject to (what are now) special licence
conditions under Schedule 4 of the Act. Moreover, the authors observe that negative media
publicity surrounding Newcastle CBD hotels may have prompted hotel management to more
rigorously enforce responsible service of alcohol practices. Nevertheless, in the Authority’s view
this research identifies a clear correlation between the imposition of licence conditions by the LAB
and significant improvements in the overall assault rates in the Newcastle CBD.
212. The Authority has made its findings for the purposes of this decision on the balance of
probabilities. Having considered:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
the Police statistics which show a decline in assault rates in Hamilton since late 2008
the Police statistics on the rates of assault by location in the suburb of Hamilton
BOCSAR research showing the positive impact of imposing a similar package of late trading
restrictions across the late trading hotels in the Newcastle CBD
the submissions and circumstances of each venue
the Authority is satisfied that the consistent imposition of the Review Conditions across these six
major late trading licensed premises in Hamilton, combined with the good management practices
implemented by those licensed businesses (some of which preceded the imposition of the Review
Conditions) have contributed to reducing the rate of assaults in Hamilton.
213. The Authority is satisfied that the Review Conditions have contributed to improving residential
amenity, albeit in an entertainment precinct that is now less vibrant than it was prior to the
Authority’s intervention, due to less people on the streets in the early hours of the morning
migrating among licensed premises.
214. The Authority is satisfied that continued good management, built upon a framework of similar
mandatory ongoing licence restrictions, will consolidate these positive developments.
– 42 –
215. The Authority notes the arguments made by several of the Affected Hotels that they are not the
only late trading premises in the Hamilton area. That is correct, but the Authority has not taken
action against any other late trading premises in this decision, by reason that:




only the Affected Hotels were the subject of a disturbance complaint by Police in 2009
only the Affected Hotels were the subject of a finding of undue disturbance in the Review
Decision in August 2010
only the Affected Hotels were put on notice, in the Review Decision, that the Authority
would consider imposing any of the Review Conditions for a further period beyond the 15
months that was determined in the Review Decision
there has been no submission yet made to the Authority by any law enforcement agency –
either Police or the compliance section of OLGR - to the effect that regulatory action
should now be taken by the Authority against any other late trading premises in Hamilton.
216. Against this background, the Authority has decided to impose the New Conditions on the licence
of each of the individual Affected Hotels. The patrons of each of the Affected Hotels have
previously demonstrated their potential to cause undue disturbance and the Authority is satisfied
that each of the New Conditions is an appropriate and proportionate harm minimisation measure
to impose, on an ongoing basis, upon the licences of each of these major late night trading
licensed businesses.
217. The Authority is satisfied, based upon the Supplementary Police Submission and the matters
discussed by the Authority in the Review Decision, that the licensees of several of the Affected
Hotels had agreed, through their Local Liquor Accord, to implement certain voluntary harm
minimisation initiatives, including a 1.30 am lockout on Saturday and Sunday mornings, the use of
RSA Marshalls after midnight and the observance of certain drink restrictions after midnight.
218. The Authority is satisfied that this voluntary action was prompted by Police moves to negotiate
the introduction of harm minimisation measures in Hamilton in light of the Police success in their
complaint to the LAB under section 104 of the former Liquor Act 1982 regarding late trading hotels
in the Newcastle CBD. In that respect, regulatory action and the introduction of good
management initiatives have been interrelated.
219. The imposition of the Review Conditions by the Authority has served three regulatory purposes.
First, it has strengthened and supplemented the voluntary initiatives that had been implemented
by some of Affected Hotels in late 2008. Second, by making observance of the conditions
mandatory (in that a breach of a licence condition is punishable by a fine of $11,000 or 12 months
imprisonment or both) it has increased the pressure upon licensees and their staff to be diligent in
their compliance practices. Third, it has made the observance of these harm minimisation
measures consistent across these six late trading hotels.
220. The Authority is satisfied that it is the public interest to impose the ten New Conditions upon
each of the Affected Hotels. As previously notified, the New Conditions commenced effect on 28
March 2012.
– 43 –
Yours Faithfully
Chris Sidoti
Chairperson
on behalf of the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority
– 44 –