On 13 December 2007 the NSW Government enacted the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW). This act will, upon proclamation, replace the 1982 Liquor Act.

There is nothing new about it being against the law for an intoxicated person to be on licensed premises. The new Act does however for the first time in NSW define “intoxication”. It proclaims that a person is intoxicated if:

(a) The person’s speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is noticeably affected, and

(b) It is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the affected speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is a result of the consumption of liquor.

The Director of Liquor and Gaming has issued further guidelines stating that a person may be intoxicated if they are adversely affected in one or more of the following ways:

SPEECH – Slur words; Talk in rambling or unintelligible sentences; Be incoherent, repetitive or use mistaken words;

BALANCE – Constantly fall or trip over; Bump into people and things; Be unsteady or unable to stand straight, sway uncontrollably;

CO-ORDINATION – Fumble to light a cigarette, count, pay or receive money, Spill or drop drinks; Unable to open or shut doors;

BEHAVIOUR – Become rude, aggressive, or offensive; be unable to concentrate, focus or listen to instructions; Be a pest to others; be boisterous.

WRITER’S COMMENT:
Well we have been on this continent for well over 200 years and in that time shared many a brew and sometimes been intoxicated, maybe even enjoyed it to the harm of no-one. Perhaps it is time our mother state told us when we have had enough and should go home. What do you the reader think?

GAMING/SELF EXCLUSION

• Patron self excluded from Star City in May 2004;
• Patron claimed to have entered casino on 65 occasions between June 2004 and January 2006 and suffered losses of several hundred thousand dollars.
• Patron entered the gaming areas knowingly breaching his failing to take reasonable steps to prevent him from entering the casino;
• Patron also contended that the casino made misleading representation re his possible detection if he re-entered the casino.
• Patron sued casino.
• Within a few weeks the patron returned to the casino ‘to see whether the exclusion order would work and whether the casino would stop me….. I was very scared that the staff would catch me but nobody noticed me ….. so I returned’.
• The total losses were alleged to be $612,095.
• Justice Jacobson gave judgment on 27 September 2007 that all of Mr Foroughi’s causes of action failed.
• He stated that ‘A gambler who enters a casino in breach of a voluntary exclusion order and suffers losses will have no redress in the form of damages against the casino. That is not to say that the casino does not have some obligation to try to detect such persons and remove them’. The orders made were that the application was dismissed with costs. The casino agreed not to pursue its cross claim against Mr Foroughi.