Paul, re [2002] NZLLA 166 (10 April 2002)

Last Updated: 24 February 2010

Decision No. PH 166/2002

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by LARRY WILLIAM PAUL pursuant to s.123 of the Act for renewal of 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 14 March 2002

APPEARANCES

Mr P J Egden for the applicant
Mr A C R Sullivan – Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Sergeant J F Armstrong – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application for renewal of a General Manager's Certificate. We remind ourselves of the criteria to which we must have regard in considering this application. These criteria are listed in s.126 of the Act and they are:

(a) The character and reputation of the applicant;

(b) Any convictions recorded against the applicant since the certificate was issued or last renewed;

(c) The manner in which the manager has managed the sale and supply of liquor pursuant to the licence, with the aim of contributing to the reduction of liquor abuse;

(d) Any matters dealt with in any report made under s.124 of this Act."

Such reports are requested from the District Licensing Agency Inspector and the Police.

In this case both the Police and the District Licensing Agency Inspector have appropriately reported on the fact that since the certificate was last renewed there has been a conviction for driving with an excessive breath alcohol content.

[2] In terms of the criteria there is no question about Mr Paul's character and reputation. He has had an involvement with the hospitality industry since 1987. He has been the owner and/or manager and/or licensee of a large number of licensed premises since that time. He has held a manager's certificate for most of that time. Such is his knowledge and expertise that he has been appointed from time to time by Lion Breweries Limited to take over the management of licensed premises, when the previous licensee has either left or had financial problems.

[3] We have before us a recent letter from the regional director of Lion Breweries. It states that Mr Paul is a well known and respected publican. He was employed by the receiver of the Bishopsdale Tavern in 1988. The company was extremely impressed with his professionalism and management during the six monthly term of receivership.

[4] As Mr Paul acknowledged, since the amendment to the Act in 1999, there has been a new era of professionalism with managers. Parliament's expectation has been that these managers will have a full knowledge of the law. That they will be experienced people with good private ethics. As a consequence they will be more likely to uphold the law and the conditions of the licence, and contribute to the reduction of liquor abuse and harm minimisation. This case is a little unusual.

[5] Mr Paul originally applied for the renewal of his certificate in the year 2000. At that stage he had been arrested for driving with an excessive breath alcohol content. However, he had entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. Because of the arrest the matter came to a public hearing before the Authority. At the hearing questions were asked of Mr Paul. He exercised his right against self incrimination and declined to answer.

[6] The Authority took the view that it could do nothing in the meantime because there was no conviction. The Authority renewed the manager's certificate for just the one year until 31 March 2001.

[7] The “not guilty” plea was based on a technical defence. As a consequence of a ruling from the Court of Appeal the plea was altered. Mr Paul came before the District Court on 2 October last year. The breath alcohol level was 770 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. He was convicted and fined $1,000 and disqualified for six months.

[8] Normally one could say that this was an isolated incident in the light of Mr Paul's experience and age. However there is a previous conviction in 1989 when he was 30 years of age. On that occasion there was a blood alcohol level of 105. A conviction and a fine were imposed. He now has two drink driving convictions against him although technically, the only conviction that we should take into account is the second one.

[9] We have said before and we repeat that anybody who is convicted of an offence involving liquor abuse who is the holder of a General Manager's Certificate will be looked at rather more seriously than if, for example, that person had been an ordinary citizen. In other words the standards of managers are such that it is expected they will ensure they are not convicted of charges of this nature, so that at the very least, they can at least lead others by example. We balance those factors against the following positive matters:

(a) Mr Paul is a man well respected in the industry;

(b) That throughout his career there appears to have been no complaints about his ability to manage licensed premises;

[10] Normally in a situation like this we would renew a licence for 12 months. However he was held back on his last application for 12 months for the same offence. In those circumstances, we have decided to allow the manager's certificate to be renewed for its normal period.

[11] Accordingly the manager's certificate is renewed.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 10th day of April 2002

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Paul.doc(nl)