FREE LICENCE FOR BORE AT THE BAR

SOME people are pests drunk or sober, but not many get the Federal Court to
rule that their persistent obnoxious behaviour is in order. Coffs Harbour
club pest Wayne Marsden appears to be the exception.

In a major lurch in the wrong direction, a Federal Court judge has ruled
that Marsden's record for boorish behaviour be ignored and, most curiously,
that his addiction or drug dependency (which doesn't affect his tolerance
for alcohol) be recognised as a legitimate disability.

Justice Catherine Branson's reasoning is on the Internet. It's worth
reading, because she appears to have taken a large leap into a sea of
illogicality.

Justice Branson heard an appeal by Marsden against the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission's support for the Coffs Harbour
Ex-Servicemen's and Women's Memorial Club, which had refused him service
after repeated complaints about his behaviour.

But as there doesn't appear to be any evidence that the club blamed
Marsden's disturbing behaviour on his addiction to methadone, why has
Justice Branson permitted addiction to be dragged into the equation?

Marsden complained to the commission that the club breached the Disability
Discrimination Act 1992 when it refused to serve him alcohol, called him
before its disciplinary committee and removed him from the premises over
what he termed a "minor" incident.

After the commission dismissed his complaints, Marsden appealed to the
Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act.

The court heard that Marsden, a former heroin addict who has been addicted
to methadone for some years, claimed he was the victim of a series of
discriminatory acts by club staff from December, 1994, and was expelled by
the judicial committee of the club in November, 1996.

Marsden believes his problems began when a syringe was found in a bag
attached to his bicycle outside the club in December, 1994, and that staff
may have concluded he used illegal drugs.

In January, 1995, when he and a friend, both seemingly intoxicated, were
asked to leave the club, Marsden said he was addicted to opiates and on a
methadone program.

He was told that being in the club in "an affected condition" was
unacceptable, but he said it was a very hot day and he was nauseated and
fatigued after walking to the club, not intoxicated.

In June, 1996, he was reported as being "unsteady on his feet ... slurring
his speech and appeared severely affected by something".

Marsden said he "was under the effect of methadone" and was asked to leave
because of his condition. He did so, although he tried to re-enter the club
shortly afterwards and was prevented from doing so.

The club wrote to him, telling him there had been repeated incidents of
unsatisfactory behaviour and asking him why his membership should not be
suspended.

When Marsden appeared, he explained he was on methadone but, in any case,
drank very little.

His membership card, which had been confiscated when he tried to re-enter
the club, was returned to him with a verbal warning and the recommendation
that he not drink alcohol while on medication and on club premises.

Marsden was advised in August, 1996 that his club privileges had been
reinstated, but two months later it was reported he had drunk a full glass
of Bailey's Irish Cream.

The club's chief executive then spoke to him and gave him a letter
reminding him that he had been warned about drinking alcohol while on
medication and letting him know he wouldn't be sold alcohol while on
medication.

The club also explained that it had a responsibility to patrons regarding
service of alcohol and it was vulnerable should they become intoxicated.

So far, so good, as most sensible, sane people might think.

But two months later, Marsden caused a disturbance after losing on the
poker machines. It was reported that he was "affected by either alcohol or
a substance" and that he was "unco-ordinated".

He was asked to re-appear before the club's judiciary committee in November
to discuss reports of "behaviour unbecoming of a member" and "unacceptable
behaviour and attitude towards staff members", and show why he should not
be suspended.

Marsden didn't attend. He later claimed he believed the club and its
officials were discriminating against him and that, in effect, he would not
receive a fair hearing.

The committee resolved that he should be expelled.

An HREOC commissioner rejected Marsden's appeal on the grounds that he
appeared to be intoxicated by "something", and surely that is the whole point.

If "something" affects your behaviour and makes you appear drunk, then you
either shouldn't take that "something" or you shouldn't be around people
who object to your behaviour.

The commissioner found there was "simply no acceptable evidence" that the
decision to bar Marsden was discriminatory on the ground that he was given
"less favourable" treatment "because of his opiod (sic) dependence and/or
the fact that he suffered a chronic hepatitis infection".

"He was alleged to have been intoxicated and to have exhibited unacceptable
conduct.

"He was subjected to the usual process the club adopted in like cases. He
was given the opportunity to show cause, which he rejected.

"There can be no basis for suggesting that in expelling him in these
circumstances, the club treated him less favourably than any other member."

As evidence was given that consumption of alcohol by a person taking
methadone does not make a person exhibit signs of intoxication, why did
Justice Branson decide that Marsden's use of the drug constituted a
"disability"?

In reality, Marsden's disability was his inability to hold his liquor and
act in a civilised fashion when losing at the pokies.

And he was represented by Legal Aid lawyers, paid for by you and me.

Justice Branson's ruling should be overturned before every obnoxious drunk
is assured of a court-ordered perch at the club bar.