Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority |
Last Updated: 27 January 2010
Decision No. PH 163/2009
IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989
AND
IN THE MATTER of an application by CALLUM BURSON 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: Mr P M McHaffie
HEARING at AUCKLAND on 12 February 2009
APPEARANCES
Mr C Burson – applicant
Mr G S Whittle – NZ Police – in
opposition
Mr A C Phillips – Auckland District Licensing Agency
Inspector – to assist
ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY
[1] This is an application by Callum Burson for a General Manager's Certificate. Mr Burson filed his application in early November 2008. To a large extent Mr Burson qualifies for a certificate in terms of the criteria set out in s.121 of the Act. He is the holder of the Licence Controller Qualification.
[2] He has had employment with a well known vessel chartering company in Auckland for the last two years. He has a reference from the Onboard Services Manager recommending him as a suitable person to be the holder of a certificate.
[3] He was interviewed and displayed a satisfactory knowledge of his legal responsibilities under the Act. Mr Burson is a full time skipper with the Fullers Group and is responsible not only for the operation of the vessel, but also for customer service requirements and supervision. It is a rule of the company that all skippers should be the holders of a manager's certificate, to help maintain decorum and order on board the boat.
[4] The issue relates to convictions incurred by Mr Burson and to a lesser extent, his failure to disclose all the convictions. As to the second point, Mr Burson has explained that he did not fill in the application form himself. He said he was not fully aware of all the dates of the offences and was well aware that the Police have the required information. We detected no particular attempt to mislead either the Agency or the Authority. To that extent Mr Burson is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as far as his character and reputation is concerned.
[5] However he does have relevant convictions. He has two historical matters in 1998 for driving with excess breath alcohol content with a level of 656 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, as well as a breach of the liquor ban. He has a more recent conviction for breaching a liquor ban in 2007. Having heard his explanation, it could not be said that he is a person who wantonly attempts to breach the law as far as liquor bans are concerned.
[6] More importantly on 20 January 2008, Mr Burson was apprehended. He had been drinking prior to driving and had a level of 547 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. He was duly taken before the North Shore District Court and was convicted and fined and ordered to pay Court costs and disqualified for a period of six months.
[7] Mr Burson was clearly able to make the connection between his own personal behaviour and the object of the Act. The error of judgment that he displayed has had a considerable impact on him as well as on his professional career. Mr Burson is anxious to try and get the past behind him as soon as he can, so that he can assist the company that he works for, by being the holder of a certificate.
[8] Regrettably for him the Authority has a different agenda. By and large, we aim to keep standards high in the industry, particularly in relation to the holders of managers' certificates. It is these people who carry the full responsibility for compliance with the Act and the conditions of the licence. In particular managers are responsible for ensuring that there are no liquor abuse issues on the premises that they are in charge of. We also expect them to set examples to their patrons and associates in terms of self-responsibility.
[9] The leading case in relation to how to deal with convictions as pointed out by both the Inspector and the Police is that of G L Osborne LLA 2388/95 where the Authority stated:
"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. Nevertheless all convictions must be weighed as required by s.121(1)(b). 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.”
[10] Mr Burson was reasonably impressive in the witness box. We think he would make a good manager in due course. For that reason we are not going to decline the application. On the other hand, the application will not be granted at this time because to do so would in our view, undermine the integrity on which the Act is based.
[11] We propose to adjourn the application for a period of 12 months. If there are no adverse reports received after that period of time then we will be happy to grant the application on the papers without a further public hearing. We suggest that in the last three months of the adjourned period, Mr Burson should be able to act as a temporary manager from time to time thereby giving him a good lead-in towards the eventual grant of the certificate.
[12] The application is adjourned on those terms.
DATED at WELLINGTON this 20th day of February 2009
B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary
Callum Burson.doc(aw)
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZLLA/2009/163.html