Gray, re [2002] NZLLA 417 (19 August 2002)

Last Updated: 7 April 2010

Decision No. PH 417/2002

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by AARON RICHARD WILLIAM GRAY 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 NAPIER on 8 August 2002

APPEARANCES

Mr A R W Gray – applicant in person
Mrs A M Carr – Napier District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist
Senior Sergeant B C Greathead and Sergeant J L Alderson – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Aaron Richard William Gray for the renewal of his General Manager’s Certificate. On 1 April 2000, the law was significantly changed by Parliament. Section 115(1) of the Act now provides that at all times when liquor is being sold or supplied to the public on any licensed premises, a manager must be on duty and responsible for compliance with this Act, and the conditions of the licence.

[2] As a result of that change, the responsibility for compliance fell solely on managers. As a further consequence, the hospitality industry and others, concentrated resources on the training of managers. This was to ensure that not only were they people who knew the law, but they were persons on whom Parliament and the Authority, could rely, for ensuring that the object of the Act was achieved. It was against this background that this Authority has had to deal with a number of persons who have obtained General Manager’s Certificates, but then transgressed against the law, particularly by driving after drinking.
[3] There has been a tendency by the Authority to refuse such applications. An example of that is the case of Paul John Davidson LLA 419/2001. In that case it was said that a conviction recorded against a person who is the holder of a General Manager’s Certificate will normally be treated with greater seriousness than a conviction recorded against a person who is making a fresh application for a General Manager’s Certificate. In other words, we take the view that people in the industry should be more aware of the problems relating to the abuse of liquor, than an ordinary citizen. In this case, the criteria which we must take into account on such a renewal include:

(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.

[4] Mr Gray has been working with Pak ‘N Save for five years. He started as a shelf filler, and is now a floor manager. He has held a General Manager’s Certificate since 16 October 2000. His main area of responsibility is in the grocery area. However as a manager, the company is reliant on his services as has been explained by the assistant manager of Pak ‘N Save, who has taken the trouble to come here today to support Mr Gray. Pak ‘N Save is not regarded by the Police as a problem premises. In fact, in a recent controlled purchase operation, the business refused to supply liquor to a person under the age of 18.
[5] Since Mr Gray obtained his General Manager’s Certificate he has had two convictions. These convictions were:

• [a] For driving with an excessive breath alcohol content. The record shows that the level was 781 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The conviction was recorded almost one year ago on 9 August 2001. Mr Gray was fined and disqualified.
• [b] Two months earlier on 12 June 2001, he was convicted for wilful damage. He was fined and ordered to make reparation. Alcohol was involved on that occasion as well.

[6] Mr Gray has explained that he went through a bad patch. He believes that he has come out the other side as a better person. He has family responsibilities now. He feels that the lessons have been learned. His attitude has been supported by his employer who says that it has been quite a turn around. The company is fully supportive of him, and has ensured that he has undergone retraining.
[7] Such was the support that Mr Gray had, the Police felt obliged to suggest that the Authority might be creative in trying to impose a sanction in line with other decisions. It was suggested that any decision should enable Mr Gray to see light at the end of the tunnel, and thereby continue along his chosen career path.
[8] After some discussions, Mr Gray has agreed that for a period of six months he will voluntarily not make use of his General Manager’s Certificate. In other words, he will no longer be able to be a duty manager.
[9] Accordingly, we propose to adjourn this matter for six months. If, during that period of six months there is no sign of any further trouble, and he still has his employment with Pak ‘N Save, the Police and the District Licensing Agency Inspector have indicated that they will withdraw their opposition. Our intention is that following a positive report from the Agency Inspector in six months time, we would then renew the manager’s certificate for the normal three-year period.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 19th day of August 2002

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

arwgray.doc(aw)