Murupara Liquor [2010] NZLLA 843 (10 August 2010)

Last Updated: 12 August 2010

[2010] NZLLA PH 843

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by PRABH LIMITED pursuant to s.31 of the Act for an off-licence in respect of premises situated at 64 Pine Drive, Murupara known as “Murupara Liquor”

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge J D Hole
Member: Mr P M McHaffie

HEARING at ROTORUA on 4 August 2010

APPEARANCES

Mr W Ah Chan - agent for applicant
Mr I P Major - Whakatane District Licensing Agency Inspector - in opposition
Sergeant J Henderson - NZ Police - to assist

Objectors
Mr A R Chapman
Ms A Tanirau
Ms J M Gerbic
Mr J Te Kurapa
Mr A S Timo
Mr S H T Mohenoa
Mr P J G McManus
Ms W MacDonald

RESERVED DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

Introduction

[1] This decision relates to an application for an off-licence in respect of premises at 64 Pine Drive, Murupara known as “Murupara Liquor”. It was proposed that the business would trade as a bottle store and the hours sought to sell liquor were between 8.00 am to 11.00 pm daily. No designation was sought in respect of the premises.

[2] Initially the Police and the District Licensing Agency opposed the application.

[3] Subsequently the Police withdrew their opposition. (At no time had they given reasons for their opposition).

[4] The Inspector had misgivings about the hours sought and, in addition, he considered that the premises should be designated as a restricted area.

[5] Advertising attracted 19 letters of objection together with a petition bearing in excess of 200 signatures. There was also a petition in support of the application.

[6] At the hearing eight objectors entered appearances. Because Mr McManus had to catch an aeroplane, his objection was heard first. While it was a very well crafted objection, it did not address the criteria set out in s.35 of the Act.

[7] Mr Baljinder Singh, one of the directors and a shareholder of the applicant gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. His wife is the other director and shareholder. He indicated in his evidence that the applicant would be prepared to modify the proposed hours of operation and also designate the area to be occupied by the liquor store as restricted.

Authority’s decisions and reasons

[8] At the conclusion of Mr Singh’s evidence the Authority enquired as to whether there were to be any other witnesses for the applicant. Upon receiving a negative reply the Authority indicated that, subject to any submissions that Mr Ah Chan might have to make on behalf of the applicant, the application would not be granted. After hearing Mr Ah Chan’s submissions, the Authority indicated that it intended to refuse the application as it was not satisfied as to the suitability of the applicant.

[9] The Authority confirms that it is not satisfied as to the suitability of the applicant. Whilst individually, some of the reasons for the Authority’s decision may not be sufficient to establish unsuitability, nevertheless, when the reasons are considered in their totality, there is no doubt that the applicant has failed to establish its suitability.

[10] The reasons that the Authority is unsatisfied as to the suitability of the applicant are as follows:

• [a] In his evidence in chief, Mr Singh indicated that the reason the applicant wished to open a liquor store was that the other off-licences situated in Murupara were too expensive. He elaborated on this, under cross-examination when he responded to a question posed by Mr Timo by stating that he wanted to open the liquor store because alcohol sold at the hotel was too expensive. The applicant’s aim was to make the purchase of alcohol cheaper. These statements, in themselves, indicate that the applicant has no intention of contributing to the reduction of liquor abuse: indeed, the statements can be construed as encouraging liquor abuse. Thus, the applicant’s proposal to sell discounted liquor is contrary to s.4 of the Act and the object of the Act expressed therein. Further, his proposal to discount sales of liquor, (for it seems that is what the applicant intended to do), would almost certainly place the applicant in breach of s.154A of the Act (relating to inappropriate promotions);
  
• [b] Neither Mr Singh nor his wife has ever been involved in the sale of liquor. They are totally inexperienced. Apparently Mrs Singh has undertaken some training course but does not hold a General Manager's Certificate. Mr Singh has undertaken no training in respect of sale of liquor matters. He indicated that he would undertake training should the application be granted. He thought that if he worked for about a month in other licensed premises he would have obtained sufficient training. He suggested that he did not need much training to run a liquor store;
  
• [c] Mr Singh indicated that he had no understanding of the Murupara community. The population of Murupara is predominantly Maori. It has significant problems with both youth and adult unemployment. These problems are inclined to manifest themselves with both drug and alcohol abuse. In response to a question from Mr Mohenoa he indicated that he did not understand about Te Reo. Obviously this matter is not something which would preclude the applicant from obtaining a licence. Nevertheless in a small community like Murupara some idea of the local culture would have been useful;
  
• [d] In response to a question posed by Ms Tanirau, he stated that he was prepared to work with existing liquor outlets to make sure that persons banned by them or the Police would not enter the premises. While this statement favours the applicant’s suitability, nevertheless, the Authority was left with the clear impression that Mr Singh was answering the question on the spur of the moment without having given any consideration to its content. The Authority was not satisfied that Mr Singh would be prepared to cooperate with other liquor outlets in this regard;
  
• [e] Mr Singh’s understanding of the Sale of Liquor Act was abysmal. He did not understand the object of the Act. He has never been involved in the sale of liquor. He does not know why there are rules relating to the sale of liquor. He was unaware that there are recommended industry standards as to the age when identification should be checked.
  

[11] When assessing suitability, s.115(4) of the Act can have relevance. This is the section which requires a licensee to take all reasonable steps to enable a duty manager to comply with his obligations in terms of the section. Given Mr Singh’s lack of understanding of the Sale of Liquor Act, the Authority doubts that the applicant would be able to take appropriate steps to enable a duty manager to comply with such obligations.

[12] The Authority concludes that the applicant is totally unsuitable. Indeed, it considers that the application for the licence was misconceived. For the Authority to have granted this application would mean that the Authority could be perceived as encouraging liquor abuse; not endeavouring to reduce it.

[13] It would have been helpful to all concerned if the District Licensing Agency Inspector’s report had addressed the issue of “suitability”. Had it done so, Mr Ah Chan might have appreciated that the applicant’s suitability was an issue requiring resolution. Upon reflection, Mr Ah Chan may then have advised the applicant that the application had no prospect of success.

Conclusion

[14] The application for the off-licence is refused.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 10TH day of August 2010

B M Holmes
Secretary

Murupara Liquor.doc(aw)