Alcohol at larps may be illegal

Community Larp discussion
,
#1

If you were paying attention to the news this morning, you may have noticed the story about school after-ball parties being deemed illegal by police, which included this:

The case she referred to was from the district court in Napier, where a man who advertised a party on Facebook that degenerated into a brawl was charged with holding an unlicensed event.

Police wrote last week to Canterbury secondary school principals and said the ruling meant that it was illegal for anyone unlicensed to run a party where people drink and where there was any sort of money charged, regardless of age.

The ruling applied to organisers, bouncers and the partygoers themselves.

The application to larp events is obvious. We charge admission, and are generally open to the public (if they sign up a month in advance, get a character etc). If its illegal for ball after-parties, then its almost certainly illegal for short-form larps. Overnight events might be OK, as the law they’re reinterpreting has an exemption for residents (which is why motels and their guests don’t get prosecuted).

I’ll try and get a copy of the ruling so we can see exactly what the law means now, but event organisers may want to consider this when planning their events.

#2

Interesting. Would this then apply only to games which charge for attendance, and not free ones?

#3

The news reports imply yes, but I think we’d need to see the court ruling to know for sure.

#4

That is quite serious - and hard because you would think you’d only need a license to sell alcohol. At the party in the court case were they paying for a ticket and alcohol was provided or BYO - because that would make a difference.

#5

It was BYO. Hence why this is problematic. Everyone knows you can’t sell alcohol without a license, or provide it to minors, but incidental BYO by adults isn’t something people tend to think of as problematic unless it causes problems for others.

#6

Having organised a few one-off social events where alcohol was to be consumed, I checked with Auckland Council and the venue to ensure that we didn’t require licencing. After speaking at length, they cited this: “You don’t need a special licence if the party is privatedetermied that these events are private” that is, the event isn’t advertised to the whole of the world and open to anyone who just wants to walk in off the street. We do selective advertising, typically within our community group.

Also, in most cases the alcohol was being supplied by the participants, rather than the organisers providing it.

Good to continue to do more research for sure though just to make sure, and to see how it applies in all regions.

1 Like
#7

I’ve got hold of the judgement from the District Court. The full version is on Google Drive here, but I’ve excerpted the relevant bit below:

[30] Section 235(5) provides that premises may still be considered as a place of resort for the consumption of alcohol despite only certain persons or classes of persons being allowed to access the premises.

[31] In Browne v. Police Richmond J held premises are kept or used for the consumption of alcohol if the consumption is a substantial, although not necessarily the main, purpose of people attending, and such purpose is actively encouraged or facilitated by the occupier.

[32] There must be more than some isolated of casual consumption of alcohol and the premises in a passing or transitory way. As noted above, a building hired for a single day or a single night for a social purpose involving consumption of alcohol can still qualify as premises being “used” on that occasion as a place of resort for that purpose. Premises do not need to have been used on a previous occasion for the consumption of alcohol before they can become a “resort”.

[33] In the present case the property was being used for a one-off party. However, the advance publicity regarding the event, the requirement for plastic and no bottles to be brought to the property, the need for security and for wristbands for guests under 18 demonstrate that the consumption of alcohol was to be an integral part of the event.

[34] The prosecution has established the premises were being used as a place of resort for the consumption of alcohol

Did the defendant allow the property to be used as a place of resort for the consumption of alcohol?

[35] The defendant acknowledged he knew people would be bringing alcohol with them to the property. he advised the police of this. He also took steps to facilitate the consumption of alcohol including banning glass, hiring security and taking steps to ensure those under 18 years of age would not drink. The defendant allowed the premises to be used as a place of resort for the consumption of alcohol.

The judgement avoids the topic of what other sorts of events might be covered or whether the law was intended to apply to the circumstances in question.

My conclusions:

  • Ordinary larp events are probably safe. Drinking is not a substantial part of these, but incidental.
  • Anything structured or advertised as a feast may potentially be in trouble if alcohol is mentioned or facilitated in any way, as drinking would naturally be seen as a substantial part of this. The judgement sets some truly terrible incentives here, in that any attempt to act responsibly and lawfully by e.g. ensuring under 18s do not drink is treated as evidence of guilt.
  • The “private party” defence is not considered, because the event in question was very, very public. While @amphigori’s comment gives us some cause for hope here, the judgement is at pains to point at (at 40 - 44) that there is no defence of “officially induced error” in New Zealand law. So, checking with the District Licensing Authority does not protect you in any way from prosecution or conviction.
  • The best means of avoiding prosecution appears to avoid coming to the attention of police.
#8

Good summary, I/S.

I agree that larps are unlikely to be targeted because alcohol is incidental to the activity, and that informational security is key to maintaining protection against police interest (who really should have better priorities, IMO)

This case is likely to have a massive chilling effect in the space of fundraising because these days the cost of a special licence is prohibitive in many cases. e.g. in Auckland it costs $276 for a special licence. That’s a lot of booze to sell to break even on the licence. Sure, the licence lets you hold up to three events, but who does that ? *

So, instead, a lot of fundraising activities are BYO and this could well put them into illegal territory.

If/when the police do eventually target a Decile 8+ BYO school fundraiser (i.e. largely middle-class Pakeha) then I think we’ll see new case law that rolls the current case back somewhat.

  • Then again, perhaps it would be possible for a long-running game (e.g. Crucible or Musketeers) to purchase a Special Licence for 3 weekend events (or for the 3 days of a Weekend Event). This would protect us in the large games, which are more prone to attention.
#9

[quote=“Mike_Curtis, post:8, topic:21280”]
Then again, perhaps it would be possible for a long-running game (e.g. Crucible or Musketeers) to purchase a Special Licence for 3 weekend events (or for the 3 days of a Weekend Event). This would protect us in the large games, which are more prone to attention.[/quote]

That would let them sell alcohol, which is a lot of hassle and a lot of people just don’t want to do, while creating serious liability if anyone brings their own. It is however one solution. But there’s apparently no way to get a special licence for a BYO event - i.e. no way for events of this type to comply with the law without changing them in to something different.

The real risk scenario here isn’t direct targeting, but if an event comes to the attention of police in some other way e.g. if there is theft during a larp, or someone is assaulted on the way home. These are not risks which are easy to manage, and the safest policy for event organisers may simply be to say “no drinking”.