A 112605
DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF LIQUOR LICENSING
NAME OF PREMISES:
MADORA BAY TAVERN
SITUATED:
1 MADORA BEACH ROAD, MADORA WA 6211
LICENSEE:
GIOVANNI PAPALIA
MANAGER:
GIOVANNI PAPALIA
LICENCE NO:
60220289
NATURE OF APPLICATION:
SECTION 64 INQUIRY
On 9 May 2003, Liquor Licensing Inspector Webb visited the Madora Bay Tavern to inform
the licensee that a customer had complained of the situation where they were shopping in
the adjoining delicatessen and was able to view a scantily clad “skimpy” barmaid working in
the lounge bar. Inspector Webb advised Mr Papalia (the tavern licensee) to ensure that the
doors between the delicatessen, the storeroom and the liquor store are kept closed at all
times.
Mr Papalia was also reminded that the licence conditions required the skimpy
barmaid (employee) to be appropriately dressed at all times.
On Friday 30 May 2003, Inspectors Blake and Trpcev attended the tavern to investigate
whether Mr Papalia was keeping the doors from the delicatessen to the liquor store shut.
During their visit, however, Inspectors Blake and Trpcev noticed that the doors were partially
open and Mr Papalia was once again warned of the consequences if he did not restrict the
viewing of the barmaid from the delicatessen.
On Saturday 14 June 2003, Inspectors Brian Carlton and Murray Hobson attended the
Madora Bay Tavern to investigate a further complaint concerning the skimpy barmaid
employed at the tavern.
Inspectors Hobson and Carlton could clearly see the skimpy
barmaid working in the lounge bar from outside the licensed area. The skimpy barmaid was
also seen to be wearing a bikini top and a g-string.
At the time the Inspectors were leaving the premises, they noticed that the skimpy barmaid
had removed her top and was patrolling the public bar with her breasts exposed.
In
mitigation, Mr Papalia explained to the Inspectors that he did not prevent the barmaid from
exposing herself, primarily because one of the patrons, a bikie, had earlier threatened to be
violent if he did not allow the skimpy barmaid to perform.
In response to the evidence presented, I conducted an inquiry on Thursday, 10 July 2003
with Inspector Trpcev and Mr and Mrs Papalia in attendance.
DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF LIQUOR LICENSING - MADORA BAY TAVERN
2
Mr Papalia was briefed on the nature of the proceedings and responded by advising that he
and his wife have managed the Madora Bay Tavern for approximately 23 years.
He
explained the Madora Tavern is a small premises and that he only engages one skimpy
barmaid between 6pm to 9pm on Friday nights, and 3.30pm to 7.30pm on Saturday
afternoons. On most occasions, approximately 10 to 30 patrons would be present at any one
time. He argued that his tavern provides a service to the public in terms of providing good
meals and a place for people to socialise. It is a family run business and he has limited
financial resources to employ security guards or extra bar staff. He emphasised that it was
his first offence of this nature. Importantly, however, he did not refute any of the details
outlined by Inspector Trpcev in his report.
After considering the evidence of Inspector Trpcev, and the explanation offered by the
licensee, I am satisfied that the breach is sufficiently serious to warrant a restrictive condition
being imposed on the Madora Bay Tavern licence pursuant to section 64(3)(g) of the Liquor
Licensing Ac 1988t.
The restrictive condition will serve as a deterrent against further
breaches of this nature and will be imposed in a manner which is consistent with previous
decisions by this authority, for example, Bel-Air Tavern, The Burrendah Tavern and the
Burlington Hotel.
Therefore, during the period 1 August 2003 to 31 August 2003, the nature of entertainment
will be restricted in accordance with the following condition:
“The use or engagement of skimpy barmaids and strippers, or the provision of live
entertainment by way of dance reviews, or similar performances, colloquially referred
to as “Raunchy Shows”, is prohibited from 1 August 2003 until the 31 August 2003.”
In addition, the following further condition is imposed:
“Mr Papalia is required to demonstrate that he has successfully completed an
accredited training course in liquor licensing before 1 October 2003.”
I take the opportunity to also warn the licensee that any future transgressions regarding this
type of entertainment could result in a similar restrictive condition being imposed for a longer
period of time and/or a complaint being lodged under section 95 of the Act to the Judge of
the Liquor Licensing Court for disciplinary action.
H R Highman
___________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF LIQUOR LICENSING
24 July 2003