Wardell, re [2002] NZLLA 282 (31 May 2002)

Last Updated: 12 March 2010

Decision No. PH 282/2002

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by KERYN (GAEL) WARDELL 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 QUEENSTOWN on 22 May 2002

APPEARANCES

Mr P G Wilson – on behalf of applicant

Ms T J Surrey – Queenstown-Lakes District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition

Detective Constable T A Hollebon – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Keryn (Gael) Wardell for a General Manager’s Certificate. At the commencement of this decision we remind ourselves of the criteria to which we must have regard when considering such an application. These criteria are listed in s.121 of the Act. They 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.

[2] In terms of those criteria, with the exception of the convictions, it is accepted that Ms Wardell would be an asset to the hospitality industry. She is just 22, but most of her working career has been in the industry. For the past 2½ years she has worked primarily for the Quirk family at the Wakatipu Tavern. Mr Quirk has been good enough to attend the hearing and not only support the application, but give something of a glowing reference for the potential of Ms Wardell. The family employ a large number of employees and in Mr Quirk’s estimate Ms Wardell is in the top percentile of those employees in terms of trustworthiness and ability to carry responsibility. Ms Wardell has completed a training course in the sale of liquor and achieved competency up to the NZQA standard. She has a number of other achievements. There are a large number of references which have been produced from past employers and the current employer being the Wakatipu Tavern.
[3] An initial concern from the Police was the failure to disclose a 1998 conviction, but the explanation for that omission has been accepted by the Inspector and the Police. The Police and the Inspector’s concern relate to a conviction recorded in the Queenstown District Court on 6 November 2000. The evidence given discloses that just after midnight on Saturday 21 October 2000 Ms Wardell had been recorded as speeding. She was eventually apprehended and with her co-operation produced a breath alcohol level of 695 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.
[4] Mr Wilson has pointed out that that conviction is now a little over 18 months ago. He has submitted that because of the support and because of Ms Wardell’s otherwise favourable conduct, the application could be granted. The Police and the District Licensing Agency have suggested that an adjournment may be preferable. We refer to the case of D J Enterprises Limited LLA 531-532/97 which, in our view, sums up the raising of standards of managers. The Authority said:

“The guiding hand or hands-on operator of any company or the potential holder of a General Manager’s Certificate now receives greater scrutiny from both the Police and other reporting agencies. Character and reputation are closely examined. The law and human desires of patrons frequently take different directions. The Police cannot be everywhere. Little but a licensee’s or manager’s character and suitability may stand between upholding the law and turning a blind eye. Self-imposed standards in accordance with the law must be set by licensees and by holders of General Manager’s Certificates.”

[5] The yardstick in respect of similar applications was set by Osborne LLA 2388/95, in which the Authority stated:

“Less serious convictions are also weighed. By way of example is an isolated excess breath/blood alcohol conviction for a single driving offence disclosing no pattern of offending. 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 provided suitable reports from both the Police and Licensing Inspector are received.”

[6] Notwithstanding the persuasive submissions of Mr Wilson we are inclined to adjourn this application for six months. We do not see this case as being an exception to the general rule. The adjournment would have three advantages. It would enable the enforcement authorities to monitor Ms Wardell’s conduct in her workplace. Secondly, the period of time would then represent a minimum of two years from the date of the conviction, and thirdly, it will give the employers the opportunity to appoint Ms Wardell as temporary manager should they wish to do so. We will expect that at the expiry of six months if there are no adverse comments then the application will be granted on the papers.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 31st day of May 2002

_____________________________
W Newall
Deputy Secretary wardell.doc(aw)