Gerrards Creations Limited, re [2002] NZLLA 239 (8 May 2002)

Last Updated: 4 March 2010

Decision No. PH 239/2002

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by GERRARDS CREATIONS LIMITED pursuant to s.18 of the Act for renewal of an on-licence in respect of premises situated at 1237 Pukuatua Street, Rotorua, known as "Stix Bar"

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge E W Unwin
Member: Mr J C Crookston

HEARING at ROTORUA on 15 February 2002 and 3 May 2002

APPEARANCES

Mr P D Swain –agent for applicant company
Ms J A Smale – Rotorua District Licensing Inspector – in opposition
Sergeant W Morehu – N Z Police – in opposition

RESERVED DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

Introduction

[1] Gerrards Creations Limited is a private company which is owned by Warwick Gerard Bray, and his father Joseph Robert Bray. Mr W G Bray has a number of business interests in Rotorua. He specialises in purchasing run down businesses and turning them around for a profit.

[2] The premises at 1237 Pukuatua Street, Rotorua had previously been a licensed pool operation. The on-licence could only be operated when pool was being played. The business had been poorly managed. It appears that the premises had become a haunt for gang members. Eventually the business was closed. Mr Bray's company purchased the assets from the liquidators.

[3] At the time of the purchase, Mr W G Bray had very little experience in the conduct of licensed premises. The company hired three persons with General Manager's Certificates. The company commenced trading with a temporary authority. It decided to alter the emphasis away from a pool parlour. Accordingly it obtained a tavern style on-licence on 31 October 2000.

[4] The hours of operation (subject to the usual Christmas Day, Easter and Anzac Day restrictions) were:

Monday to Sunday 9.00am to 3.00am the following day

[5] Since the premises were first opened, the nature of the business has changed. A dance floor has been installed. A DJ has been employed to play music on Wednesday nights through to Saturday nights. The number of pool tables has been reduced to eight. There is a gaming room, and other machines. The changes have proved to be popular. On some nights a large number of patrons are attracted to the bar and the dance floor.

[6] During its first year of operations there were regular visits to the premises by Police, the District Licensing Agency Inspector, and members of Crown Public Health.

[7] In addition, observations were made by City Patrol Officers. These people were employed as part of a six month pilot scheme which was set up to patrol and monitor the Central Business District. The ultimate aim of the scheme was to make the City safer for all.

The Application

[8] In early October 2001, the company made application for the renewal of its licence. The application drew adverse reports from the District Licensing Agency Inspector, and the Police. Their concerns was based on what they saw as poor management practices resulting in the alleged supply of liquor to prohibited persons, namely under age and intoxicated persons. Another factor which brought about the reports was the number of times the 'Stix Bar' featured in the last drink surveys.

[9] The reporting agencies recommended that the hour of closing be reduced to 1.00am, and that the designation be changed from 'supervised' to 'restricted'. The company was not prepared to alter its hours, particularly as there were about ten other licensed premises in the vicinity with a closing hour of 3.00am. Accordingly the application was set down for a public hearing.

The Hearings

[10] By consent, the opposition evidence was heard first. On the first day of hearing the Authority received evidence from nine Police witnesses, as well as a Health Promoter and a City Patrol Officer. The case was then adjourned part heard.

[11] On the second day, the Authority heard evidence from the District Licensing Agency Inspector. She was followed by Mr W G Bray, and one of his managers, Mr G O Cook. Ms Smale acknowledged that Mr Bray had always been co-operative, and friendly, and eager to keep the Agency informed.

[12] There were a large number of factual disputes about what had occurred in or outside the bar. Many of the reported incidents happened in the street outside the 'Stix Bar'. Observations were made of intoxicated persons in the street. The issue was whether the people who were there, had come from inside the bar. There were two reported incidents of intoxication inside the bar. There were also allegations of under age drinkers being seen on the premises, although on analysis only one such person was proved to be under eighteen.

[13] When he gave evidence, Mr Bray noted that a month previously he had decided to refuse permission to all persons under the age of eighteen. He thought that checking on whether young persons were with their parents or guardians, was not worth the trouble.

[14] Mr Bray spoke of the security employed by the company. He noted the problems his security people had in dealing with troublesome people in the street and moving them on. He disputed many of the allegations which were made. He conceded that in the early part of the business operation, there were problems. He blamed that on the patrons he had inherited. He believed that he was now providing a safe environment for all.

Decision

[15] In view of the concession made by Mr Bray concerning his decision to refuse entry to all persons under the age of 18, both the Police and the District Licensing Agency Inspector made a submission that the designation could now be changed to 'restricted'. If that happened they indicated that they would be prepared to accept a limited renewal on the same terms (including the 3.00am closing) to confirm that 'the lesson had been learned.' This offer was made before all the applicant's evidence had been heard.

[16] This compromise was accepted by Mr Swain on behalf of the applicant company. We confirm that in our view the proposal is fair and reasonable. The next seventeen months will give the applicant company ample time to establish whether it can operate within the conditions of its licence. It will also give the reporting agencies ample time to monitor the business to ensure compliance with the law.

[17] In a case such as this the criteria to be considered are contained in s.22 of the Act.

In considering any application for the renewal of an on-licence, the Licensing Authority shall have regard to the following matters:

(a) The suitability of the licensee:

(b) The manner in which the licensee has conducted the sale and supply of liquor pursuant to the licence:

(c) Any matters dealt with in any report made under section 20 of this Act.

[18] After considering the application for renewal we are required by s.23 either to

(a) Renew the licence on the conditions presently attaching to it

(b) Renew the licence on such different conditions as the Licensing Authority thinks fit;

(c) Refuse to renew the licence.

[19] We are unable to change the conditions on the licence except in response to a public objection; or an adverse report from a District Licensing Agency Inspector, or the Police or Medical Officer of Health; or a request from the applicant.

[20] Taking into account the criteria we make the following orders:

(1) The designation of the premises is altered from 'supervised' to 'restricted'.

(2) The on-licence is renewed for two years only. This will take it through to 31 October 2003.

DATED at Wellington this 8th day of May 2002

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

stixbar.doc