NSW Caselaw
Local Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Police v Di Francesco [2016] NSWLC 21 Hearing dates: 06 October 2016 Decision date: 07 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Huntsman LCM Decision: Offence proved beyond reasonable doubt Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – Liquor Act prosecution – whether patron intoxicated - whether licensee permitted intoxication - whether patron noticeably affected - meaning of permit/permitted - statutory defence of taking all steps in guidelines Legislation Cited: Liquor Act 2007, ss 3, 5, 73 Cases Cited: Bond v Reynolds [1960] VR 601 C.A.L. No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board; C.A.L. No 14 Pty Ltd v Scott [2009] HCA 47 Chappell v A Ross and Sons Pty Ltd; McLennan v Hastings Transport Pty Ltd [1969] VR 376 Collingwood Hotel Pty Ltd v O'Reilly [2007] NSWCA 155 Lyver v State of Victoria [1983] 2 VR 475 Mitchell v Gascoigne (1906) 6 SR (NSW) 717 Nicoll v Dobeson; Nicoll v The Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (No 3) [2014] NSWDC 109 R v Kenny [2008] NSWDC 389 Rolfe v Willis [1916] 21 CLR 152 Somerset v Wade [1894] 1 QB 574 Starkie v Van Tobruk [2007] WASC 51 Category: Principal judgment Parties: NSW Police (prosecution) Brian Di Francesco (defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr Chapman (for the defendant)
Solicitors: Sgt Weston (police prosecutor) Mr Yardy (for the defendant) File Number(s): 2016/00050688
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate