Lee, re [2002] NZLLA 90 (8 March 2002)

Last Updated: 20 February 2010

Decision No. PH 90/2002

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by JOHN STUART LEE 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 WELLINGTON on 28 February 2002

APPEARANCES

No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant
Mr R S Putze – Wellington District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Senior Sergeant G D Logan – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This application by John Stuart Lee for a General Manager's Certificate lacks merit for a number of reasons.

[2] The first reason is that all applicants for a General Manager's Certificate are interviewed by the District Licensing Agency Inspector to establish their experience, and qualifications, and more particularly their knowledge of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989.

[3] The applicant was sent a letter following the filing of his application. Appointments were made on two occasions but Mr Lee failed to keep either of them. The second problem with the application is that the District Licensing Agency Inspector contacted the Kilbirnie Tavern where the applicant said that he had been employed. The Inspector was advised that the employment had ceased. No further information was available on Mr Lee's employment in the hospitality industry. There have been a number of attempts to contact the applicant without success.

[4] The final concern raised by the Police is that the applicant, when filling in the form, stated that he had been convicted on 13 July 2000 for threatening language. He received a sentence of nine months supervision. He was to attend anger management counselling. Mr Lee went on to say that there were other convictions which were over five years of age and are on the minor end of the scale.

[5] The Police enquiries have revealed that the applicant has ten previous convictions. These include such serious matters as an assault on a female. It is noteworthy that the final conviction was recorded on 7 September 2000 was for threatening language. The original charge was threatening to kill.

[6] In those circumstances, the Police quite rightly have expressed concerns about the failure to report accurately the extent of the convictions.

[7] The adverse circumstances include the fact that the applicant does not appear to have employment. When coupled with his failure to appear today, and the pattern of his offending, he is not a person in whom this Authority would have confidence in his ability to run licensed premises on his own.

[8] The application is refused.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 8th day of March 2002

Judge E W Unwin J C Crookston
Chairman Member

arbarber.doc (nr)