Armstrong [2008] NZLLA 832 (19 June 2008)

Last Updated: 23 January 2012

Decision No. PH 832/2008

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by SHAHIDA ROSE ARMSTRONG pursuant to s.118 of the Act for a General Manager's Certificate

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge E W Unwin
Member: Dr J Horn

HEARING at CHRISTCHURCH on 10 June 2008

APPEARANCES

Ms S R Armstrong – applicant
Mr P Spang – Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Sergeant A J Lawn – NZ Police – to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Shahida Rose Armstrong for a General Manager's Certificate.

[2] The application was filed with the District Licensing Agency on 11 February 2008. Ms Armstrong disclosed that she had a conviction for driving after drinking which had occurred in 2007. She also included the Licence Controller Qualification, and a very supportive reference from the general manager of licensed premises known as "Iconic" where she had been working for at least two years.

[3] She had been appointed to a senior staff position at these premises and eventually had become second in charge. According to Mr Wells the general manager, she has also been working as a duty manager. It was stated that Ms Armstrong had excellent customer service skills and standards which she prided herself in, and which were appreciated by both customers and staff members.

[4] The evidence shows that at about 3.40 am on 4 December 2006, Ms Armstrong was driving a vehicle in Christchurch. She lost control of the vehicle and collided with two bus stop signs. There was damage to the extent of over $2,500. She was affected by alcohol and indeed an evidential breath test gave a level of 1,231 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, which everybody has acknowledged is a very high level.

[5] We have heard from Ms Armstrong about the matters that led up to the incident. It is clear that Ms Armstrong has taken the matter very seriously. She has never drunk to that extent since. She was able to make the connection between her own behaviour and her responsibilities as a duty manager. She stated that at that time she was in a new position and had not appreciated the seriousness and the responsibility that goes with the privilege of holding a certificate. She had not appreciated the role that she is expected to play as the holder of a certificate in a responsible position in the industry. She says that she has matured considerably since that time, and has put that behind her.

[6] To some extent her evidence was confirmed by Mr Wells. He was good enough to come before us to say that he had never known her to drink to the extent that she must have drunk on the morning in question.

[7] The conviction is the only issue before us. However given the level of intoxication it is a serious concern. On the other hand both Mr Wells and Ms Armstrong have taken considerable pride in the way that they have managed the premises. While Mr Wells has been in charge under the previous ownership there were relatively good reports both from the Police and District Licensing Agency Inspector.

[8] We see no reason to depart from the guidelines given in G L Osborne LLA 2388/95 in which it was suggested:

"Without fettering ourselves in this or other applications, it may be helpful if we indicate that we commonly look for a five year period free of any serious conviction or any conviction relating to or involving the abuse of alcohol or arising in the course of an applicant’s duty on licensed premises.

Less serious convictions are also weighed. By way of example is an isolated excess breath or blood alcohol conviction or a single driving offence disclosing no pattern of offending. In these and similar cases we frequently indicate that a minimum of two years from the date of conviction may result in subsequent favourable consideration providing suitable reports from both the Police and a Licensing Inspector are received.”

[9] We accept that that period could be extended because of the level of alcohol in Ms Armstrong's breath. However this would not compensate for the fact that there are other positive aspects in her favour.

[10] Ms Armstrong has recently resigned from her position with "Iconic". She currently has no employment. Although there is no employer present we have no doubt that she will have employment in the industry in a short period of time in a responsible position.

[11] We take the view that the application must be adjourned for the period of six months so that the minimum of two years can be seen out. If there is to be a temporary appointment then proper notification will have to be made. It may be that there could be opposition at that time. At any event we will call for further reports in six months time. Such reports should also cover the issue about where she is employed and what support she has. If there are no adverse matters then we intend to grant the application on the papers.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 19th day of June 2008

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Shahida Armstrong.doc(aw)