Will Sydney's new lockout laws change your travel plans?

[anat0l]

Idea 1- all clubs / bars have a no ID no entry policy where all ID is recorded. If you "muck up" inside or within the area, you automatically receive a 12month ban from that area and any licensed club ( like a AVO). Police would hold this data base.

Idea 2- Dry out areas where people who are affected by either legal or illegal substances can go for help / recovery without fear of prosecution (saves a ambulance / hospital visit later)

Idea 3- better police presence (eg mobile police stations in known hot spots)

Idea 4- better RSA enforcement

Idea 5- better late night transport

I'm surprised why #1 has never been given earnest consideration for implementation. You'd think it's kind of a no-brainer in a way, and the administrative effort is not excessive compared to the benefits. You might need to install a new law about being belligerent whilst on the list (i.e. someone gets rejected from a club or area for being on the list, then they get antsy about it).

#2 has been floated a few times, but some argue that it would act as a sanctuary and fallback more than an education / wake-up call for people to stop getting blind drunk. Especially if they go there as an alternative to going to a hospital when that might be what they need (and then they are back out where they could be "prejudiced").

#3 has been pushed out more in SEQ for what I know. I'm not sure about in Sydney, or how many more police will be required. But then people also complain that police seem to be abusing their powers and this will not be helped with stiffer laws...

#4 has been discussed here, and how would you go about enforcing it...

#5 is definitely something. To be honest, it's fair in Brisbane; not sure about in Sydney. The real problem is that no late night transport system goes to all the fringes of the network, in any city in Australia. Most in Brisbane could likely get home on the NightLink system; a whole chunk of others would be better having a plan B for camping somewhere rather than trying to get home the same night, simply because they are too remote compared to their party venue (extra expense, but a wiser plan). It still leaves cab ranks a bit backlogged at closing time. The fixed fare system worked OK, so I'm not sure why they don't try it more often. My average waiting time after a big night at the cab rank was about 22 minutes.

 

[MartinMemo]

There are drunk tanks in Brisbane that I guess work re; #2

 

[ChasingDaylight]

The money can be raised from the taxes not lost to clubs forcing them to close to early, and the tourism that won't be lost now that Sydney is closed for business.

Feel free to post up the figures to back this up, otherwise I think you're simply making this up (to put it nicely). Likewise, not aware that clubs & bars are the only businesses in Sydney CBD.

As an example of elsewhere - The Newcastle licencing accords resulted in a reduction of after dark assaults by nearly a third. In reality, did Newcastle close for business as a result?

 

[MartinMemo]

Feel free to post up the figures to back this up, otherwise I think you're simply making this up (to put it nicely). Likewise, not aware that clubs & bars are the only businesses in Sydney CBD.

As an example of elsewhere - The Newcastle licencing accords resulted in a reduction of after dark assaults by nearly a third. In reality, did Newcastle close for business as a result?

I know it won't just be me who doesn't come to Sydney because or this. A small company that does epic weekend shows with world famous DJs has already stopped operations.

 

[anat0l]

Where do the extra Police come from - and who is paying for them? Do we raise taxes?



1 - Why the Police? I think Nightkey run their own side of this well.

2. Who pays for this?

3. As above. New recruits or taken from other areas?

4. Agree with this.

5. Again, who pays?

The money can be raised from the taxes not lost to clubs forcing them to close to early, and the tourism that won't be lost now that Sydney is closed for business.

Sorry, that's a pipe dream. You can't argue that clubs closing later will take in more and one can benefit from the extra taxes (city, income, licensing) that come out of it. Arguments about tourism improvement or loss thereof is not solid, especially on numbers, so trying to bank funding on that note is not realistic.

I know it won't just be me who doesn't come to Sydney because or this. A small company that does epic weekend shows with world famous DJs has already stopped operations.

The irony is that if less people go, the problem starts to be minimised organically even without the new laws or raising taxes.

The only way to pay for all of that is to raise taxes. That could mean increased taxes for businesses that operate during certain hours (certainly a deterrent to stay open!), increased general population taxes, of which some of these are then passed onto consumer purchases in the wee hours.

Some would argue that the state budget should be reworked to accommodate the police hours required, but that's a very big wish for what is a small fish fry for the state government! It's much cheaper for them to stick with the plan they are proposing (of course), even if it isn't the most optimal plan.

The dry out areas may have to be non-profit organisations, but hopefully you could find generous donations to run them. Difficult and wishful.

The police should have a hand in the patron blacklist, so that legal enforcement can be immediate if required. It can also be connected to criminal and criminal activity records.

Transport can only be improved through raising taxes and/or fares, although one could also argue that the transport system is inherently inefficient so immediate changes could be made to improve effectiveness without raising fares or taxes. Especially at night when people are claiming that some or all of the transport should be free of charge. Maybe when Opal is circulated further, there could be a rule that Opal cards can be used, even if there is insufficient funds. The card will be put into debt and must be "paid back" by recharging before the card can be used again, but at least the user can get home. (A consequence for this is that any Opal used in this way must be user registered).

 

[MartinMemo]

Honestly the way I see it - is there crime? Yes (by the minority in some areas). Why?... Why is it allowed to happen? Not enough police? Get more.

 

[williamsf1]

1 - Why the Police? I think Nightkey run their own side of this well.

2. Who pays for this?

3. As above. New recruits or taken from other areas?

4. Agree with this.

5. Again, who pays?

1- The police would be better to enforce this.... for example some one banned in The Rocks, could not head to Kings Cross and cause issues up there.... Also , as most of the assaults happen on the streets away from clubs , the police would be legally able to ask for ID if a offence had occurred, and then ensure they are banned from all areas ( ie after dark etc)

2- Many community based volunteered organisations already offer such services at dance parties etc. These facilities could be sponsored by local venues .... There would be cost savings in less ambulance call outs / ED admissions


3- Mobile police vans can also be sponsored by local venues. Extra police patrols could be a "pay for use" type system ( this is already in place at such events as cricket matches) . New recruits are NOT the answer as they lack the experience to handle these situations. Older more experienced police are a lot better in these situations

4- Glad we agree on something

5- Most of us pay taxes and expect a reliable public transport system. Have you even been around town hall station about 3am with all the people waiting for a bus? the longer they wait..... the more violence starts. could be as simple as having a bus every 15mins and not every hour.

 

[williamsf1]

Feel free to post up the figures to back this up, otherwise I think you're simply making this up (to put it nicely). Likewise, not aware that clubs & bars are the only businesses in Sydney CBD.

As an example of elsewhere - The Newcastle licencing accords resulted in a reduction of after dark assaults by nearly a third. In reality, did Newcastle close for business as a result?

Can't provide $$$$ amounts but the following state taxes would be reduce in revenue
1- clubs pay a premium for a 24hr licence, these will no longer be needed ... so loss in revenue here
2- as clubs close early , they will need less staff, so payroll tax reduced
3- most of these clubs have poker machines, so tax revenue from these reduced

Federal tax
1- as less workers, less income tax
2- income from alcohol tax

Sydney is known world wide as a international party destination, with Mardi Gras being one key event where people come to party.... the reputation and the $$$ it brings in is at risk

As for Newcastle ..... you can't compare that to Sydney.

 

[fersea]

My observation rather than any imperial evidence is there is an elephant in the room that is only recently started to be talked about....

steroi_S!!

i would love to know the % of people committing violent crimes that are in roids.

Think about it - these guys get on the roids, it makes them bigger and stronger, gives them a false sense of confidence and makes them far more aggressive. They think they are gods gift to women and often are treated as if they are. Then give them a bit of drink or some pills and you have a recipe for trouble if someone even looks sideways at them. It also means if they hit they hit harder than ever before.

Stop the roids and you won't stop people doing silly things because they are intoxicated, but I guarantee you will stop a lot if the violence in these places.

 

[Alanslegal]

My issue is with mandatory sentencing. I've dealt with, in a professional sense, the issues that come from actions of NSW police and they're disgusting to say the least. My trust in them is next to 0 and to allow them to have even more power over people's lives is frightening.

I have worked on both sides on the fence. Close to a decade ago when I came out of university, I was fighting for police officer's rights and entitlements. Lots of very good officer's working hard for the public, for us, and risking their life on a day to day basis. Not just those officers who were out on friday night beat patrol, but highway patrol officers being the first persons on a horrible car crash, undercover officers tackling organised crime gangs where they had to act their undercover role 24 hours so just because you were a pretend gangster by day, after work you couldn't undress and wear a collared shirt and chinos and drop your kids off at school, specialist officers dealing with child abuse/mistreatment, illegal coughography. There was a whole range of hard work they did. Anyway I moved on from that.

Recently we had to defend a guy who was charged with 'assault police'. To keep the details to a minimum, he was close to sleeping (after having a few drinks) but was asked to leave a property. He refused to. Three officers were present. They said he was charged under xx and being arrested, so they tried to arrest him whilst he was still laying on the bed. He resisted by way of flailing his arms and legs. One flailing arm allegedly hit an officer - hence the charge. Now, the client entered a non guilty plea. We received the statement of facts by the three officers. Two officers had a similar version suggesting an assault occured whilst the third officer had a version quite contradictory to the first two suggesting nothing ever happened. Now at the hearing we wanted all three officers to be present so we could "test" their evidence. Surprise surprise, the third officer who had the opposing statement happened to be "seconded" away from Sydney that day and was not available as a witness. Now lucky, we were able to get the police prosecutor to accept a lower "resist charge" but should we have gone to hearing and two officers testified that the assault happened (even though the third officer would have discredited them) and thus a likely result in a guilty verdict, our client - whom would no previous criminal justice history - would have received a minimum two year imprisonment under new laws.

It's not the police who are enforced to impose mandatory sentencing, it's the magistrates and judges who are forced to use a minimum term of imprisonment for any crime which fits under these new laws, regardless of the severity or mitigating circumstances.

As my example above, my client would have had two years slapped against him with no regard to the severity or any mitigating circumstances if he was found guilty of assault police.

 

[harvyk]

I don't think there is any one root cause (alcohol / steroi_s / other drugs), anything which lowers the inhibitions of someone who has that in their nature can be a potential trigger.

I also don't think that we're actually seeing an increase either. Back in the 80's / 90's and even early 00's the odds of someone carrying a camera (video or still) when they where out and about was pretty low. Furthermore if a person did happen to have a camera, and be in the right place at the right time, the avenues for getting said images out was limited to the nightly news or the local newspaper.

These days it would be rare for someone not to have a camera of some sort with them at all times. Furthermore it's possible to take a photo, and within 10 seconds have that photo viewed by people on the other side of the earth. So rather than fights being down a dark alley somewhere, that only a few people know about, the fight is broadcast to the entire world.

Whilst I personally love the ease of access to information we have these days, it also means that we now see and hear of events which would have in previous years gone unnoticed, and whilst I don't want to sound defeatist, there have been violent people (with or without chemical help) for thousands of years, and there will continue to be people who's brains are not wired right. Whilst I don't like to blame the victim, perhaps a degree of education over how not to be the next target is as much in order as removing potentially violent people.

 

[BadgerBoi]

Just don't be too loud (or pick a good property with solid walls, and preferably chip in for a big room) and try to be a bit discreet on people going in (e.g. slip them in by batches and spread over a length of time - preferably give one or two of them a key and do a bit of a key dancing).

A good apartment may be an alternative to hotels.

Otherwise, you may find you'll end up on the bad side of the property and possibly with the police knocking.

pick the apartment wisely. If I was to find that one of my neighbours rents out on AirBNB and we start having parties in my building it's not going to end happily for the party-goers.

 

[BadgerBoi]

Was hoping that'd be the suggestion, but I doubt anyone has the balls to enact laws that do that. And then you need a test case anyway, you need some club to get caught and face the extreme punishment. Preferably a big player.

Hemmes? That boy really needs a kick up the rear end.

 

[anat0l]

Recently we had to defend a guy who was charged with 'assault police'. To keep the details to a minimum, he was close to sleeping (after having a few drinks) but was asked to leave a property. He refused to. ..... Now lucky, we were able to get the police prosecutor to accept a lower "resist charge" but should we have gone to hearing and two officers testified that the assault happened (even though the third officer would have discredited them) and thus a likely result in a guilty verdict, our client - whom would no previous criminal justice history - would have received a minimum two year imprisonment under new laws.



As my example above, my client would have had two years slapped against him with no regard to the severity or any mitigating circumstances if he was found guilty of assault police.

What was the burden of proof required in the first hearing? Balance of probabilities?
One could equally argue that this person has committed an offence by being voluntarily drunk leading to resistance. He didn't have to get that drunk (viz. to the point he was incapable of the actions required of him, which were not onerous); he could've left or called someone to help him leave when asked. Instead he has resisted arrest. (Getting drunk is not necessarily an offence, but the following actions were arguably the by-product of that state).

The corollary of that argument is that an offence has been committed regardless and the consequences - even if they include mandatory imprisonment - are simply the fault of the accused. Moral of story: if you don't want to fight how much trouble you want to be in, don't create trouble in the first place. Basically, the burden of not having to have this problem in the first place lay with the defendant.

Previous criminal history should only be used to determine a sentence above the standard; not to waive a sentence or to reduce a sentence below minimum.

All said, the case here on the police side does sound rather dubious. I'm going to hazard a guess that the defendant had little or nil witnesses. If this went to court as an assault charge, I'd expect that it'd be a higher burden of proof required on the part of the prosecution, with summons expected to be raised of all police officers involved and/or all statements recorded to be submitted as evidence.

 

[Shelf]

Criminal Courts = Beyond reasonable doubt
Civil Courts = Balance of probabilities.

 

[dougieboy]

I enjoy going out in Sydney as it is a far better proposition than what Brisbane has to offer. It makes it more of an event than simply going out and getting away from the same old friends doing the same old thing and never contemplating something new. The new lockout changes I was not aware of but its good to know it means I will head out a bit earlier then move on to other venues/parties thereafter. A few associates I know of also fly to sydney for the weekend to have fun and be lost in the crowd, a somewhat more difficult proposition when living in Brisbane. I love it but it's quite provincial!