LLB101: Entertainment Premises Control Act 2013 - Law Assignment

Internal Code: MAS3765

Law Assignment Help

Questions 1: Judge Fourton is faced with a difficult decision in the Queensland District Court. The Eolian is a bar and music venue which hosts the best musical talent in Brisbane. On entry to The Eolian, patrons are required to have their retinas scanned, so that in the event of an emergency or a disturbance, management of The Eolian have a full record of attendance. Jonathon Jackis was refused entrance to The Eolian in May 2017, as he would not consent to having his retina scanned. Jackis brought an action in the Queensland District Court for damages on the basis that a patron cannot be refused entry to premises for failing to submit to a security check involving invasive technology. Assume that the action for damages is a common law action. Judge Fourton has been provided with the following five precedents by counsel: 1. Stanchion v The Pogo Pole, a 1979 decision of the Privy Council. In this case, the Privy Council ruled that a patron could not bring an action for damages on the basis that they were refused entry to a club for failing to submit to a technology security check. 2. The Discerning Drinks Club v Deoch, a 2013 decision of the High Court of Australia, on appeal from the Victorian Court of Appeal, who earlier ruled in favour of the plaintiff/appellant (Deoch) and awarded damages for inappropriate refusal from a nightclub due to technology screening. Due to illness, the High Court of Australia sat with six justices. The High Court was split 3 – 3 in its ultimate decision. 3. Selitos v The Salacious Shot Glass, a 2014 decision of the Queensland District Court. In this case, the court ruled that damages could not be awarded to a patron who was refused entry for not engaging in a technology security check. The Queensland District Court made no mention of the High Court decision of The Discerning Drinks Club v Deoch. 4. Denna v The Beautiful Game Bar a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal given in early 2015. In this case, the New South Wales Court of Appeal followed the earlier precedent of Stanchion v The Pogo Pole (even though they were not technically bound to do so) and damages were not awarded to the plaintiff / appellant (Denna). 5. Lanre v Myr Taraniel Betrayal Bar, a 2017 decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal. In this case, the Court of Appeal decided that damages could not be awarded to a patron who was refused entry to a bar, given that they did not comply with a technology security check. The Queensland Court of Appeal acknowledged the decision in The Discerning Drinks Club v Deoch, but believed that the case was distinguishable due to its specific facts. Questions 2: (a) In Question 1, Jackis v The Eolian was first heard in the Queensland District Court. That means the damages sought by Jackis must have fallen between what two dollar figures? Provide authority for your answer. (b) In the event of an unsuccessful initial hearing, which court would Jackis appeal to? Would this appeal be as of right, or would leave to appeal be required? Provide authority to support your answer. QUESTION 3 The Entertainment Premises Control Act 2013 (Qld) (‘EPCA’) has been amended recently in response to a Queensland Law Reform Commission Report on violence in Queensland drinking precincts such as Surfers Paradise, Eastside and Fortitude Valley. Recommendation 6 of the report was as follows: ‘The Entertainment Premises Control Act 2013 (Qld) should be amended to mandate the installation of security cameras at the entrances to Queensland drinking establishments. As a disincentive to violence, patrons of drinking establishments should be warned that their behaviour is being monitored by the installation of warning signs adjacent to the cameras.’ Ian Indigo, who is the owner and licensee of the Sapphire Club, a nightclub in Eastside (a suburb of Brisbane, in Queensland), owns a cockatoo called Charley. Charley lives, and ‘works’, at the Sapphire Club. During opening hours, Charley sits on the shoulder of a security guard at the entrance to the Sapphire Club. He has been trained by the Bird Trainers Association of Australia to guard premises by calling out ‘shove off’ if he takes a dislike to a person. The training was very expensive, but Ian Indigo figures that by having a bird guard the premises, he is saving on having to register a guard dog under the EPCA. Charley has demonstrated a freakish ability to identify potential trouble makers. When Charley tells a person to ‘shove off’, he or she is refused entry to the club. There have been no violent incidents at the club since Charley arrived at the beginning of May 2017. Charley is so popular with the patrons of the Sapphire Club, that Ian Indigo posts a new photo of Charley, to Charley’s Instagram page every Saturday. He selects the photos from footage captured by the security camera above the entrance to the Sapphire Club. The camera was installed on 15 May 2017, in anticipation of the commencement of the amendments to the EPCA, and continuously records those individuals entering, and seeking to enter the Club. The latest photo of Charley was posted on 3 June 2017, and his Instagram page has already amassed 3000 Instagram ‘followers’. Charley also features on a large warning sign situated above the security camera which was installed at the same time as the camera. The sign is easily visible to people lining up to enter the Sapphire Club:

1. Patrons are warned that our security cameras are watching and recording!
2. Charley is watching too!
3. Look for Charley on Instagram!
4. Look for your picture on Instagram and secure your drinks for free!

As the sign suggests, Ian Indigo has found another novel use for the security footage. Since 15 May 2017, he has been selecting images of patrons of the Sapphire Club from the footage and posting them on Instagram every day. He has placed advertisements in the local newspaper promoting what he has called his ‘secure your drinks for free’ scheme: if a person in one of the Instagram photos comes to the Sapphire Club again, he or she will be given a $100 champagne voucher to use at the Club. So far, the scheme has been very popular. The Eastside Police have informed Ian Indigo that they will be visiting the Sapphire Club at 9am, on Friday 9 June 2017, to check that the Club is compliant with the newly amended EPCA.