Three men and nine women found out the hard way that it is against the law to be in licensed premises after closing hours, whatever their reasons for being there.
No evidence was being offered that they were drinking alcoholic beverages, Crown Counsel Gail Johnson said in Summary Court on Wednesday.
But the Liquor Licensing Law is strict, she told Magistrate Nova Hall. Remaining in a bar during prohibited hours is an offence unless the person is a licensee or employee.
The 12 defendants were charged after being found at the Next Level Night Club in the early part of Sunday, 10 September, 2006. The closing time for bars on a Saturday is midnight.
They first appeared in court charged with obtaining intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours and all pleaded not guilty The bar’s duty manager, John Mack, was initially charged with supplying liquor during prohibited hours and he also pleaded not guilty (Caymanian Compass, 18 December).
This week, Ms Johnson said the Crown was not offering any evidence on these charges because officers were unable to say who was consuming what, if anything. The magistrate discharged all defendants on this charge.
The 12 had subsequently been charged with remaining at the bar during prohibited hours. Eleven 11 pleaded guilty.
One man had been at the bar after hours for a legitimate purpose. He had been invited there by the licensee for the promotion of an alcohol-free drink. Ms Johnson offered no evidence against him and he was discharged.
The manager had a new charge put to him — aiding and abetting persons, not being employees or licensees, to remain in the bar during prohibited hours. He pleaded guilty.
Ms. Johnson said officers received a report and went to the Next Level shortly after 1am on 10 September. They knocked on the back door and it was opened by John Mack.
The officers observed persons standing around and some were in a VIP area. Some drinks on the bar appeared half consumed and others seemed fresh.
The officers spoke to the manager about people being present after hours and said no one should be permitted to consume alcohol during those hours.
Ms Johnson said some of the people present at the time were employees waiting for their salary. Other employees were cleaning up.
The defendants, who were not employees, were not asked their reason for being there because their presence was an offence. All were warned of prosecution.
John Mack, charged as the licensee, was the duty manager. The Liquor Licensing Law allows a person in control of the premises to be charged.
Defence Attorney Clyde Allen called the incident unfortunate. Eleven of the defendants were at the bar because they were friends of Next Level employees. They were waiting for their friends to finish work so they could give them lifts home or on to other places.
He emphasised that no alcohol was being consumed by any of them and they said it was 12.30 to 12.45 am when police arrived.
On a previous occasion, Mr. Mack had been mugged outside the premises, his attorney said. He named the people who were charged with the offence and the magistrate said she did recall it.
Mr. Allen said that experience had made Mack cautious. When he saw the defendants outside waiting for their friends, he invited them in. Most were females and he was concerned for their welfare.
The magistrate said she had to balance that against the very strict nature of the law.
Mr. Allen said the manager had no intention of breaking the law. He had let the people in and they were under his control: that was his mindset.
All of the defendants are on work permits, he told the court. Any penalty would far outweigh their acts. He said one of the women charged had appeared last week before another magistrate. This defendant had pleaded guilty with the same explanation and no conviction was recorded against her.
The magistrate said the offence was made out. Having checked the files, she had confirmed the defendants’ employment situations and was persuaded not to record any conviction.
Mack’s position was a little different, she said. As manager, he had a greater responsibility under the law. She ordered him to pay $500 in costs, to reflect the fact that the prosecution had been properly brought.
She did not record any conviction against him.
Related Videos
