Bouncers’ misrule

Casually going through some comments posted on Tripadvisor by tourists who had visited Malta, I came across a particularly negative comment. It read to the effect that while visitors like the country, bouncers tend to ruin it for them.

They are always so violent and unfriendly. In particular, one visitor describes how he got attacked by a bouncer and was thrown out, and when he asked why he was getting kicked out, the bouncer just pushed him and his friend.

There is more than one recommendation to avoid our country or, at least, those areas where bouncers abound, such as Sliema, Paceville, Buġibba and other similar densely frequented weekend spots, because it risks ruining your night 100% as it has ruined many of the visitors’ nights, ending up victims of bouncers. ‘The bouncers don't care about your health or your safety; if they don't like you, they will make it very obvious!!’, was a conspicuous post that says it all.

Getting beaten to a pulp by bouncers or being repeatedly kicked and punched by bouncers jacked up on steroids should not be part and parcel of the typical Paceville experience. Unfortunately, it has been so for many years.

When months ago footage was shown of around five bouncers in Paceville savagely beating a man lying motionless on the ground, cradling his head as he was kicked repeatedly and hit with what appeared to be a retractable baton, the Home Affairs Ministry, headed by Byron Camilleri, condemned the violent attack but fell short of having talks to revamp the law regulating bouncers as it had committed itself to do in 2019 after a similar attack in Paceville, when Michael Farrugia was home affairs minister at the time.

The reason provided by the Home Affairs Ministry for such a change of heart was ostensibly that having a security licence does not give you a licence to commit acts of violence.

Yet is such a reason sufficient to guarantee that there will be no more repetitions of past ugly incidents involving bouncers?

The current legislation regulating bouncers is the Private Guards and Community Officers Act (Chapter 389), which entitles any person desiring to engage a private guard agency for the purpose of providing specialised private guard services to request the prior authorisation of the Commissioner of Police. Any person may object to such a request.

The law then goes on to state that a private guard (i.e., bouncer) at a place of entertainment shall have the power to prevent any person from entering that place of entertainment if the person is known to have caused a disturbance at the said or other premises, including through violent behaviour or harassment of other persons. Entry may also be denied to any person who refuses to produce an identification document on request, who appears manifestly intent on causing disturbance or to a person who appears violent on account of intoxication.

The private guard at the place of entertainment may exercise minimum force only where the person fails to comply without physical restraint.

To my mind, the root cause of all bouncer incidents we have lately been having is a lack of proper due diligence before authorising individuals to act as private guards as well as insufficient training in the skill required to so act.

Bouncers are not security officers. A security officer is a person who is licensed to provide security services.

Bouncers without a special licence are regular employees of the establishment for which they work. As employees of an employer establishment, bouncers are subject to the ordinary legal rules regarding the use of force and the use of restraint or detention. The ordinary rules regarding the use of force require that force be used only in self-defence. The level of force used in self-defence can be no more than is necessary to respond to an individual’s use of or threat of force.

Bouncers may not forcibly remove an individual from a public establishment. Rather, they must call the police to do so. In addition, patron behaviour that an ordinary person would simply find irritating does not constitute a threat that would justify the use of force.

If a person who is a patron is restrained and is not justified, then the patron can sue the bouncer for the civil wrong of false imprisonment. More so if the individual is not a patron and suffers any physical assault.

It is ironic that when the law was enacted in 2010, the idea behind it was to give bouncers more powers to control troublemakers while at the same time controlling them to avoid the repetition of proven past abuses. Such control does not seem to be effective at all.

Seasoned plainclothes policemen should be in charge of places of entertainment, in particular Paceville. Such policemen would ensure that order was kept and that the necessary fines were given.

Bouncers who work in bars and discotheques have to solve problems, but one needs to consider how their jobs are to be done. Their task should be coordinated with the police.

Entertainment establishments must not allow rogue elements to tarnish everybody else’s reputation. The industry must step up for the sake of its reputation, the people it employs and the revellers it depends on for its profits.