Waipa Workingmen's Club Incorporated [2002] NZLLA 91 (25 September 2002)

Last Updated: 20 February 2010

Decision No. PH 91/2002

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by KATRINA MAREE McLAUGHLAN 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 25 February 2002

APPEARANCES

Miss K M McLaughlan – in person
Mr R S Putze – Wellington District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist
Senior Sergeant G D Logan – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Katrina Maree McLaughlan for a General Manager's Certificate. The criteria to which we must have regard in considering the application are contained in s.121 of the Act. These criteria 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 most of the criteria, the applicant is a person who qualifies to be a manager of licensed premises. Her character and reputation have been supported today by Mr Hutchins who is a Director of Café Villa Limited. The applicant was appointed as a Barista and Café Assistant at the Villa in March 2001. Mr Hutchins believes that she is well presented, pleasant and a courteous young woman who consistently performs her duties well and contributes positively to the café business.

[3] The employers have complete trust in the applicant. They paid for her to complete a course of training under the Act. This training resulted in a Certificate of Achievement from Brett Jones & Associates Limited. The training was in the requirements of Unit 4646 and Unit 16705.

[4] Mr R S Putze, a District Licensing Agency Inspector, confirms that training, to some extent. He interviewed the applicant and found that she had a good knowledge in the Sale of Liquor Act. The applicant has had approximately two years experience working in a licensed premise known as the "Crazy Lounge". She has also been asked to work as a duty manager over the weekends, when the manager was not available.

[5] The only issue is a conviction. The evidence before us indicates that at 7.27 on the morning of Sunday 2 July 2000, the applicant was the driver of a motor vehicle. She was stopped at a checkpoint. A test revealed that she had a level of 558 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. Because she was under the age of 20, the maximum level was 150 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

[6] The applicant has explained that she had been drinking. The Police checklist reveals that this was in a bar in the city. She had left her car with a friend. She had waited several hours, and she had slept before getting up to drive home. She had miscalculated the level of alcohol in her breath.

[7] The conviction was recorded on 10 July 2000. The Senior Sergeant pointed out the Authority's decision in Osborne LLA 2388/95 in which it was noted:

"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. Nevertheless all convictions must be weighed as required by s.121(1)(b). In these, and similar cases we frequently indicate that a minimum of two years from the date of conviction may result in a subsequent favourable consideration - providing suitable reports by both the Police and the District Licensing Agency Inspector are received."

[8] The issue is whether this case represents a legitimate exemption to the 'rule of the thumb'.

[9] In the final analysis, having considered the matter, we think two years is an appropriate time to lapse from the date of the conviction. Rather than refuse this application, we intend to adjourn it for six months. That will take it past the two year period. If at the end of six months there are no circumstances reflecting on the applicant's character or reputation reported by the Police or the District Licensing Agency Inspector, we propose to grant the application on the papers. We think it is important to point out that in terms of s.128 of the Act, the applicant may work as a temporary manager when she is required.

[10] Accordingly the application is adjourned for six months with a view to be granted after that time.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 8th day of March 2002

Judge E W Unwin J C Crookston
Chairman Member

kmmclaughlan.doc (nr)