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.