Our client, Ryna, was an 80-year-old Guyanese African woman. She faced legal challenges after being excluded from a bar. As a result, she came to our firm for criminal defence representation.
Her case unfolded after a confrontation with security guards at a popular Sydney pub. In the end, Ryna was wrongfully accused of being intoxicated and denied entry.
Matter type: Hearing / Sentence / Section 14 Application / Trial / ADVO /
APVO / Other
Excluded from a bar
On the night of the incident, Ryna attempted to enter the bar. A security guard, judging her to be intoxicated, denied her entry. Ryna, feeling unjustly treated, walked past the security guard into the premises.
In response, the guard physically pushed her out. Upset, Ryna demanded that the manager contact the police. Instead, when the police arrived, they issued Ryna an infringement notice for failing to leave the premises as directed.
Criminal Charges under Section 77 of the Liquor Act 2007
Ryna was charged under Section 77 of the Liquor Act 2007 for remaining in the vicinity of licensed premises after being refused entry.
Police charged her with: ‘Excluded person remain in vicinity of licensed premises.’ Otherwise known as “Non-voluntary exclusion of persons from licensed premises” under s 77 of the Liquor Act 2007.
From the infringement notice, police fined her specifically under S 77 (8) (b) of the Liquor Act:
(8) A person refused admission to, or turned out of, licensed premises in accordance with this section must not, without reasonable excuse—
(a) remain in the vicinity of the premises, or
(b) re-enter the vicinity of the premises within 6 hours of being refused admission.
This is a fine only offence maximum $550. However, if it comes to the Local Court, it’s $5, 500 maximum fine and penalty risks are bigger.
Our legal strategy for client after being excluded from a bar
Ryna chose to contest the charge in court. She came to O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors for her. Our criminal lawyers represented her at a reduced rate, thanks to a referral from a judge.
We entered a plea of Not Guilty and prepared a robust defence, including subpoenas for all relevant evidence.
Court date for excluded from a bar charge
The trial took place in July 2024. During the hearing:
– We cross-examined the officer who issued the ticket. It confirmed that he did not observe any signs of intoxication.
– The security guard’s testimony was inconsistent and argumentative, undermining his credibility.
– A second security guard provided uncontroversial testimony.
Given the unfolding of the hearing, we opted not to call Ryna or character witnesses. This is because our evidence strongly favoured our position.
Criminal Defence Submissions:
We made a two-pronged submission:
1. There was no prima facie case to answer (no case submission).
2. The evidence was unreliable and insufficient for a conviction (PRASAD direction).
Excluded from a bar: the result
The magistrate, influenced by the cross-examination and the CCTV footage, dismissed Ryna’s charges. Although we did not succeed in obtaining costs, the dismissal was a significant victory for Ryna. This case might lead to a discrimination civil claim due to the circumstances surrounding the security guard’s actions.
Criminal Defence Lawyers
This case exemplifies the importance of a meticulous legal defence and the impact of credible evidence in court proceedings. Ryna’s experience highlights significant issues regarding age and racial discrimination in public accommodations. We have also set the stage for further legal actions to address these serious concerns.
Criminal Lawyer for charges
If you or someone you know needs criminal defence, get in touch with our criminal lawyers today. To get in touch, please call (02) 9261 4281, or email . We can help arrange a free, confidential consultation for you.
*We changed some details for client privacy.
Not convinced we can help you? Read our other successful criminal case studies.