Stout, re [2002] NZLLA 163 (10 April 2002)

Last Updated: 23 February 2010

Decision No. PH 163/2002

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by JOHN STEPHEN STOUT 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 J C Crookston

HEARING at CHRISTCHURCH on 15 March 2002

APPEARANCES

Applicant in person
Mr A R C Sullivan – Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Sergeant G E Manch – NZ Police – to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by John Stephen Stout for a General Manager's Certificate. The criteria to which this Authority must have regard are contained in s.121 of the Act. These criteria are:

"(a) The character and reputation of the applicant:

(b) Any convictions recorded against the applicant:

(c) Any experience, in particular recent experience, that the applicant has had in managing any premises or conveyance in respect of which a licence was in force:

(d) Any relevant training, in particular recent training, that the applicant has undertaken and any relevant qualifications that the applicant holds:

(e) Any matters dealt with in any report made under section 119."

Such reports are made by the New Zealand Police and the District Licensing Agency Inspector.

[2] Both the reporting agencies have referred to the number of previous convictions incurred by the applicant. Consequently, there is concern that the applicant may not be a suitable person to hold a certificate.

[3] In terms of the criteria generally, there are no concerns from either the reporting agencies or the Authority as to Mr Stout's character and reputation. He has for example produced a reference from a Mr Hawkins, the Regional Compliance Officer with Land Transport Safety. Presumably Mr Hawkins knew of the previous
convictions. He thought that Mr Stout gave excellent value in his job and related well to people and utilised his people skills in his current position as bar manager. He said that Mr Stout impressed him as a person of high integrity and dependability. He had no hesitation in recommending him for a position involving a high degree of reliability.

[4] Mr Stout is aged 44 years. He has never been unemployed. He has only had three jobs in his working life. This indicates stability of character.

[5] In terms of experience Mr Stout has been employed at Schroeder's Tavern for two and a half years. He started working on a part-time basis, and is now working up to 35 hours per week. He is the acting manager, and has been for some time, although the legality of such a position may be questionable.

[6] In terms of relevant training, in particular recent training, Mr Stout completed a certificate with the Christchurch Polytechnic when he started work in April 1999. There was a concern that the certificate may have been out of date when he made his application. Accordingly, he sat it again. He stated that he was advised by his tutor that he had passed with a high percentage although he has not been able to produce the certificate. Having heard from him today, we have no hesitation in accepting that evidence from him.

[7] It is the prior convictions that are the issue. Mr Stout has three convictions involving the drink driving legislation. The first conviction was recorded on 12 May 1982. On that occasion Mr Stout advised that his reading was 92 over 80 which he submits was low. At that stage he was aged approximately 24.

[8] In 1989 he was convicted for refusing a request for a blood specimen. He was fined $1,200 and disqualified for 12 months. He said that this was a time in his life when there was stress relating to a marriage break-up. On 17 July 1996 there was the third conviction. On that occasion Mr Stout was convicted for driving with an excessive blood alcohol content. The level was 179 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. It is to be noted that the level was approximately a little over twice the allowable limit. Mr Stout has said that this was also a stressful time in his life.

[9] He says that he has no alcohol problem as such. He certainly does not drink on the job and appears not to drink to any great extent for relaxation purposes. There is another conviction. Mr Stout was caught driving while disqualified. He was convicted and disqualified on 22 January 1997, some five years ago.

[10] We said in the decision of Osborne LLA 2388/95:

"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."

[11] Where people have three convictions involving alcohol abuse, we would look for a minimum period of six conviction free years. That takes us to July of this year. It is to be noted that the charge of driving while disqualified occurred five years ago and is non-alcohol related.

[12] In this balancing exercise, we have been sufficiently impressed by what we have heard today from Mr Stout, to forgo the few months between now and July. In the circumstances we have decided that this application will be granted.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 10th day of April 2002

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Stout.doc(nl)