LICENSING BREACHES

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 November 1946, Page 6

LICENSING BREACHES

VARIED CHARGES PUZZLE OFFENDERS WAR REGULATIONS REMAIN .- Recent Police Court cases at Greymouth involving breaches of the Licensing Act have created ' considerable interest in regard to the variation in the penalties imposed upon men caught in the police “net” when hotels have been visited at times when they are required by law to be closed. For instance, a number of the 13 men charged this week as the result of a raid on a Cobden hotel have been unable to understand why the breach .of . tjbe law cost six of their number a fine of 10/- and the remainder a fine of £2, and several have made enquiries from the Evening Star as to the reason for the apparent differentation. The explanation is that, in some cases, the War Emergency Regulations, as they relate to the licensed trade, are still being invoked in regard to some prosecutions. Broadly speaking, where the police consider that they have evidence that the man concerned was actually consuming liquor, the charge is laid 'under the War regulations of “consuming” liquor after hours and the regulations fix a minimum penalty of £2 for this offence. . . On the other hand, if, in the opinion of the police, there is insufficient evidence available to prove that a man was actually liquor at the time of the raid, they rely on the provisions of the Licensing A c t rather than the.Avar regulations, and lay a charge of “being found on licensed premises.” The Licensing Act does not fix a minimum penalty and, in the case of first offenders at Greymouth, the usual fine foi this offence is 10/-. Apparently the police act in this matter under instructions from higher quarters. Anomalies Created. Naturally, in the disturbance which frequently follows an afterhours police raid, many anomalies arise. Prompt action by men who have actually been consuming liquor when the police arrived has enabled them to avoid the charge of “consuming” and, by removing themselves and their glass, hastily from the bar area, they have been included in the “found on” category. It can readily be understood that when, in the police raid, friends are split and one receives a summons for “consuming” and the other a

mons for “found on premises, the man facing the more expensive charge naturally feels that there has been some discrimination and this has been the reason for the explanations sought from the Evening Star. One man who approached the Evening Star indignantly denied that he had been consuming liquor. He was quite prepared to admit that he had entered the hotel for the purpose of obtaining drink, but claimed that the police had arrived too soon. However, he was standing near the slide and was charged with ‘consuming whereas men who had been in front of him, by departing hastily, saved fl/10/- by being merely found on. ' Reluctance to Defend. It was pointed out that he had every right to defend the case in the court and that by making his explanation to the Magistrate he would receive the full-protection of the law, but the complainant’s .answer to that was the usual .'explanation of why it is rare for such charges to be defended “Yes, and get a write-up in the

paper I would sooner pay me lz, but that does not get away from the fact that I cannot see why it cost me £2 and Dick, Bill and Harty only 10/-. We were all doing the same thing.” The invoking of the war regulations produces a similar set of circumstances in regard to the licensee of the hotel and the servant or barman. In two cases heard at Greymouth this week the licensee was charged under the Licensing Act proper, with selling liquor and was fined £1 for his dr her part in the breach of the law. The barmen, on the other hand, were charged under the War Regulations with supplying liquor and were fined the minimum of £lO each. Comment upon the fact that a charge was laid under the War Emergency Regulations when the war had been ended for more than a year was made by Mr. C. R. McGinley, counsel for a licensee, in the Police Court at Hokitika several months ago. Magistrate’s Comment. The reply of the Magistrate (Mr. A. A. McLachlan) was: “One might think that the Victory Parade having come and gone, something would have been done with regard to the regulations, but while they last there is nothing else to do but to accept that fact.” , Thus it appears that offenders who take the risk of entering licensed premises during prohibited houis and are subsequently fined the regulation minimum of £2 for ‘‘consuming can do nothing else but “accept that fact.