• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The Commissioner appealed. The appeal tribunal decided to deal first with a discrete legal question: on whom does the evidentiary onus lie to show that the qualifying phrase “except in the care of a responsible adult” applies? The Tribunal (Professor P. Spender and Allan O'Neil) heard submissions and allowed grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal, holding that the evidentiary burden of adducing or pointing to evidence that a minor was in the care of a responsible adult rests on the respondent licensee (Order: Grounds 1 and 2 allowed; Reasons delivered 12 August 2010).

The appeal Tribunal did not finally determine the disciplinary matter on the facts; it resolved the legal issue of burden allocation and reserved consideration of the remaining grounds.

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal’s analysis rests on statutory construction and established common-law principles about the distinction between ingredients (elements) of an offence and exceptions (confession and avoidance), with reinforcement from the Criminal Code provisions addressing evidential burdens.

Three linked strands support the Tribunal’s conclusion.

1. Textual signposting: the Tribunal emphasised the word “except” in s 157(1). That word, in the Tribunal’s view, is a strong indicator that the qualifying matter establishes an exception to the general prohibition rather than an intrinsic element of the offence. Treating the clause as an exception leads naturally to placing the evidentiary burden on the party asserting it (the respondent) rather than on the prosecutor [see Reasons].

2. Established authorities on exception/element distinction: The Tribunal applied the approach in Nimmo, Vines and Chugg. Nimmo supplies the proposition that “exceptions etc are to be set up by those who rely upon them.” Vines and Chugg provide tests to decide whether a statutory provision that accompanies an offence is an ingredient or an exception. One useful indicator identified in Chugg is whether the matter “sets up some new or different matter from the subject matter of the rule.” The Tribunal observed that being “in the care of a responsible adult” introduces new subject matter relative to the genus “under-age persons in bar rooms,” and that observation points to the clause operating as an exception (the “species” within the genus is those under-age in the care of adults) [Chugg citation adopted in Reasons].

3. Matters within knowledge of the defendant: The Tribunal stressed that when a matter is especially within the knowledge of a defendant, that is a further indicator it is an exception on which the defendant bears an evidential burden. The Tribunal noted the licensing statutory regime and the Licensing Standards Manual requirements concerning identification checks and security staff duties. Licensees who checked ID would know a patron’s age and whether a responsible adult had been identified; the licensee is in a position to point to that responsible adult, a liquor inspector cannot be expected to guess identity among patrons. This factual orientation supported the allocation of the evidentiary burden to the licensee.

The Tribunal also considered Criminal Code ss 58(3) and 58(7). Those provisions require a defendant who relies on exceptions to discharge an evidential burden (to present or point to evidence suggesting a reasonable possibility). The Tribunal found these Code rules consistent with the common-law approach and therefore reinforcing its conclusion. Section 59 (which deals with legal burdens of proof) was not engaged.

Finally, the Tribunal invoked the High Court’s teaching in Waugh v Kippen that the elements of an obligation or offence must be construed consistently for civil and criminal proceedings; the Tribunal treated the question of what constitutes the elements of s 157(1) as requiring a single construction, regardless of whether proceedings are criminal or civil/disciplinary.

On these combined textual and principled grounds the Tribunal held that the respondent must carry the evidential burden of proving the exception.

Before and after state of the law

Before this decision the legal tests to determine whether a statutory matter was an element or an exception had already been articulated in authorities such as Nimmo, Vines and Chugg. Those cases supply the interpretive framework: look to the form of the language, whether the provision introduces new subject matter, and whether the matter is especially within the defendant’s knowledge.

What this Tribunal decision does is apply those established tests to the particular statutory formulation in s 157(1) of the ACT Liquor Act 1975 and to the regulatory context in which licensees operate (identification checks, Licensing Standards Manual). The decision confirms that where the statute uses qualifying language such as “except”, and the qualifying matter introduces new subject matter and is especially within the licensee’s knowledge, the evidentiary burden is to be placed on the licensee. The Tribunal also expressly adopts the alignment between the Criminal Code evidential-burden provisions and the common-law tests.

So the decision is consistent with existing authorities; it does not break new doctrinal ground but provides a concrete application within ACT liquor licensing disciplinary proceedings and clarifies the allocation of evidentiary onus in that context.

Key passages with plain-English translation

1. Statutory text (short and decisive): “The licensee commits an offence if a person under 18 years old is in a bar-room on the licensed premises except in the care of a responsible adult.” (s 157(1), cited at the start of the Reasons). Plain English: If a minor is in the bar-room, the default rule is prohibition, but there is a specific qualifying circumstance, being under the care of a responsible adult, that can negate the offence.

2. Nimmo principle: “... exceptions etc are to be set up by those who rely upon them.” Plain English: If a statute creates an exception, the person who claims the exception must show it.

3. Chugg indicator: “One indication that a matter may be a matter of exception ... is that it sets up some new or different matter from the subject matter of the rule.” Plain English: If the qualifying clause brings in something different from the main rule, it probably is an exception and the defendant should bear the evidentiary burden.

4. Tribunal’s practical point: licensees check ID and have staff who know whether a minor is accompanied by a responsible adult; an inspector cannot be expected to identify the adult among patrons. Plain English: Practically, the licensee is in a much better position than an investigator to show the adult was present and supervising, so fairness and practicality support putting the onus on the licensee to raise that evidence.

5. Criminal Code alignment: ss 58(3) and 58(7) give defendants an evidential burden when relying on exceptions. Plain English: The statutory evidence rules in the Criminal Code confirm the common-law approach: a defendant who relies on an exception must point to evidence supporting it.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is triggered when:

• A statutory offence contains a qualifying clause of the form “except …” or similar, raising the question whether that clause is an element or an exception; and
• The qualifying matter introduces new subject matter distinct from the prohibition’s genus; and/or
• The qualifying matter is particularly within the knowledge of the alleged defendant (for example, the presence or identity of a responsible adult on licensed premises, records or documents the defendant controls, or internal practices the defendant alone can authenticate).

In practical terms, disciplinary or criminal proceedings under liquor licensing provisions where the licence-holder claims the patron was accompanied by a responsible adult will fall under this precedent. More broadly, any statutory regulatory scheme using similar exception-language where the defendant is in the better position to prove the exception should be guided by this approach.

How later courts have treated it

This particular decision is an ACAT appeal decision applying High Court and superior-court authorities; it expressly relies on Chugg, Nimmo, Vines and Waugh and on the NSW decision Weller (El Homsi). Later decisions in tribunal or court contexts considering evidentiary allocation under liquor or similar regulatory statutes would treat this decision as persuasive within the ACT jurisdiction and as an application of established High Court authorities. Its value is primarily in its concrete reasoning about regulatory context (LSM identification rules, security staff roles) strengthening the “within knowledge” indicator.

When practitioners cite this decision, they will typically rely on two strands: (a) textual signposting (presence of “except” and the structure of the provision) and (b) the practical knowledge principle (licensee’s access to identifying evidence). The decision does not purport to displace High Court authority; rather it operationalises it in the ACT administrative-discipline setting.

Still-open questions

1. Legal burden versus evidential burden: The Tribunal decided the evidentiary burden (the requirement to present or point to evidence) lies with the respondent. The decision did not engage s 59 of the Criminal Code concerning legal burdens, nor did it confront circumstances where the statutory language or scheme might shift the legal burden on the balance of probabilities. A future case could squarely pose whether any legal (rather than merely evidential) burden should be allocated to the defendant in disciplinary proceedings under the Act.

2. Threshold of the evidential burden: The Tribunal endorsed that a defendant bears an “evidential” burden (consistent with s 58(3) and (7) of the Criminal Code), but did not set out detailed guidance on the quantity or quality of evidence required to discharge that burden. Questions remain about whether bare assertion, contemporaneous records, witness evidence, or other forms of proof are necessary to raise the reasonable possibility required by the Code provision.

3. Interaction with proof standards in civil/administrative proceedings: The Tribunal cited Waugh v Kippen to say elements must be construed identically for civil and criminal contexts. That leaves open detailed questions about how the different standards of proof (criminal beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary/civil balance of probabilities) operate in practice where an evidential burden is placed on the defendant. For example, once the respondent adduces some evidence of care by a responsible adult, what is the prosecuting authority’s necessary response to prove the absence of that care on the balance of probabilities?

4. Operational issues for regulators and licensees: The Tribunal observed licensing practices (ID checking) and LSM provisions. That raises practical compliance questions: what degree of identification checking, contemporaneous record-keeping or signage will be necessary for a licensee to be able to discharge the evidential burden satisfactorily? The decision suggests licensees should be prepared to point to such evidence, but precise standards remain to be worked out.

5. Applicability beyond the ACT and to different statutory schemes: While the Tribunal applied general principles, differing statutory texts or regulatory frameworks in other jurisdictions may point to a different allocation. Courts will continue to apply the element/exception tests case by case.

Summary: The ACAT appeal tribunal resolved a crucial and practical evidentiary question for liquor licensing enforcement in the ACT: the licensee who asserts that a minor was in the care of a responsible adult must adduce or point to evidence of that fact. The decision follows established tests in authority, emphasises the import of the word “except” and the reality that licensees are best placed to show the presence or identity of a responsible adult. The ruling clarifies immediate procedural responsibilities in disciplinary proceedings, while leaving open practical and doctrinal questions about the precise quantum of evidence required and the interplay with legal burdens in other contexts.