James Roberts Drama

[Nashy]

Not under liquor licencing conditions mate. Normally you are correct, but when a licenced premises is involved police and OLGR can go in whenever they like and require access to cctv. Failure to provide access is a breach...

Are the police involved?

 

[Morkel]

Are the police involved?

That's my point. There is no official complaint, therefore the premises isn't "involved" in anything. Just a claim made on a gutter news site.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Are the police involved?

Not as far as I am aware. My comment was that a strategy that may eventually occur to the NRL, is to make a complaint of licenced premises serving intoxicated persons to Liquor Licencing, who have the same authority as police as far as seizing CCTV for investigations into Liquor Act breaches, is concerned.

Such would become available to the NRL then through RTI requests to OLGR...

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Judging by this

The woman has been reluctant to pursue a criminal complaint, but that could change if the NRL investigation is derailed. Her parents are understood to be furious at Roberts’ alleged actions.

the police may get involved which then changes everything.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s/news-story/a64ad72b08d0e3d0e5869897d8084737

 

[Jason Simmons]

That's my point. There is no official complaint, therefore the premises isn't "involved" in anything. Just a claim made on a gutter news site.

NRL have interviewed the complainant as of today reportedly...

 

[Morkel]

NRL have interviewed the complainant as of today reportedly...

Right, but until something official happens, all of this is irrelevant:

Might want to check your licence conditions slightly more carefully then in future, if they choose to make a deal out of it...
Infringement Penalties
Failure to comply with closed circuit television conditions
Licensee employs unlicensed crowd controllers.
Maximum penalty $12,190
Maximum penalty $12,190
And because I don't want to turn this into another legal debate, none of this is my opinion, it is straight from OLGR.
Storing CCTV reporting and recordings
You must store in a secure place at the licensed premises the:
recorded details of the daily and 6-monthly checks conducted and any malfunctioning of CCTV equipment (see 'Maintaining CCTV equipment at licensed premises' above)
the register used to record the CCTV certification, which must be carried out at least every 6 months.
The new obligations also require licensees to store CCTV recordings in a secure manner and keep each recording available for inspection by an investigator (i.e. Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation investigator or police officer). In addition, a licensee can no longer destroy a CCTV recording that has previously been provided to an investigator until the investigator provides written notice to the licensee advising them that the recording is 'viewable'.
https://www.business.qld.gov.au/ind...ance-licensees/security/liquor-licensees-cctv
Whatever anyone may have done in the past, isn't relevant to James Roberts current drama...

They don't have to give the cops, or anyone, jack shit.

I've personally told the police several times that they can't have footage when they've requested it.

Therefore @Dash wash completely justified in refusing, should there have been no official complaint at the time.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Right, but until something official happens, all of this is irrelevant:

Irrelevant yes, but interesting nonetheless. I expect we will see or hear of such soon.

They don't have to give the cops, or anyone, jack shit.

You are not correct my friend, but as I've already posted what the offence is for failing to do so, I'm not going to bother. If you want to argue with the Act, feel free.

Therefore @Dash wash completely justified in refusing, should there have been no official complaint at the time.

For OLGR or Qld police to inspect A. CCTV in a licenced premises, B. Security Provider logs, C. A Liquor licence and the licencee (and subordinates) compliance with said licence's conditions, neither OLGR nor police require a warrant or a complaint in order to do so, but we are going around in circles.

Feel free to go and read the actual Liquor Act if you are not happy with just the section of it, I have already posted that confirms what I am saying.

 

[Morkel]

Edit: I get it now. The NRL can't go in until the police are involved, but the police themselves can get involved whenever they want. Apologies JS, I wasn't following properly.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Wait, I don't get it. So they can go in for effectively a "random inspection" to check compliance, but they're not allowed to do it in order to chase up an unnoficial complaint?

They can do it randomly, they can do it for 'intelligence' reasons, they can do it for an actual investigation (which is what it would be if NRL complained to OLGR per my comment) for pretty much any reason they wish, per the act. It says OLGR and Police can do 'x,y,z' there are no effective caveats under what curcumstances only are they allowed to do this and do that.

Checking the CCTV to see if Nightclub 'X' was serving intoxicated persons is certainly within both OLGR and the Police's authority under the Liquor Act and it's associated Regulations. No warrant, no complaint and no other authority other than what is under the Liquor Act is required.

OLGR's reason for being is ensuring licence conditions are met and enforced, do not even require a complaint to commence any investigation into such matters.

Does that make sense?

 

[Morkel]

They can do it randomly, they can do it for 'intelligence' reasons, they can do it for an actual investigation (which is what it would be if NRL complained to OLGR per my comment) for pretty much any reason they wish, per the act. It says OLGR and Police can do 'x,y,z' there are no effective caveats under what curcumstances only are they allowed to do this and do that.

Checking the CCTV to see if Nightclub 'X' was serving intoxicated persons is certainly within both OLGR and the Police's authority under the Liquor Act and it's associated Regulations. No warrant, no complaint and no other authority other than what is under the Liquor Act is required.

OLGR's reason for being is ensuring licence conditions are met and enforced, do not even require a complaint to commence any investigation into such matters.

Does that make sense?

Absolutely. Thanks for clarifying for the slow.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Absolutely. Thanks for clarifying for the slow.

All good man, wasn't trying to start another long winded legal debate, merely a comment about my surprise about why the NRL doesn't follow the law up here to the letter and simply complain about intoxicated persons to OlGR and follow up from there...

Of course, the conspiracy theorist in me, would never suggest that they don't do this very thing so as to be able to publicly deny any knowledge of what 'really' happened and damage their brand...

It's not like the NRL with all of it's associated leagues club interests would have any association with the relevant liquor licencing authorities across the various States and be completely across what Liquor Licencing can and can't do in licenced premises...

 

[Kyall]

They can't just drag it out though especially if they can't get the information they need and no realistic complaints got put, was only for the media.

 

[Super Freak]

They can drag it out as long as they like, unfortunately.

 

[Brent81]

This is smelling more and more by the day.

Doesn't want to make a complaint unless the NRL probe is derailled. You can't make a police complaint for a collateral purpose (getting footage for IU). It's called abuse of process.

Also if she makes a complaint and the real police (not IU) say there is nothing in it, or he gets acquitted in Court (like Bird) then it'll be law suits at 10 paces in the event that Roberts has been sacked.

As for the complaint gave a 'credible' account. Spare me. The IU thought the woman who accussed Boyd and Teo gave a 'credible' account too. They also thought the girl that accused Brett Stewart was credible.

This trial by leak and media has too stop.

Further IU has to have its wings clipped. No police complaint? Sorry, come back later.

 

[austin71]

This is smelling more and more by the day.

Doesn't want to make a complaint unless the NRL probe is derailled. You can't make a police complaint for a collateral purpose (getting footage for IU). It's called abuse of process.

Also if she makes a complaint and the real police (not IU) say there is nothing in it, or he gets acquitted in Court (like Bird) then it'll be law suits at 10 paces in the event that Roberts has been sacked.

As for the complaint gave a 'credible' account. Spare me. The IU thought the woman who accussed Boyd and Teo gave a 'credible' account too. They also thought the girl that accused Brett Stewart was credible.

This trial by leak and media has too stop.

Further IU has to have its wings clipped. No police complaint? Sorry, come back later.

I'm not sure using Brett Stewart as an example is the best idea lol

 

[broncos4life]

I'm not sure using Brett Stewart as an example is the best idea lol

Agreed, that's really just pointing the finger...

 

[Brent81]

I'm not sure using Brett Stewart as an example is the best idea lol

Why?

IU believed it. Despite it being dodgy from the start.

 

[Nashy]

The NRL investigators make an intoxicated patron complaint, get them to seize the CCTV and then make an RTI application? Unlikely.

I still don't get why they would succeed

Not as far as I am aware. My comment was that a strategy that may eventually occur to the NRL, is to make a complaint of licenced premises serving intoxicated persons to Liquor Licencing, who have the same authority as police as far as seizing CCTV for investigations into Liquor Act breaches, is concerned.

Such would become available to the NRL then through RTI requests to OLGR...

Sorry but I call bullshit. Why would they be under any obligation to release it under that to the NRL.