Tepania, re [2003] NZLLA 198 (3 April 2003)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Tepania, re [2003] NZLLA 198 (3 April 2003)

Last Updated: 27 February 2010

Decision No. PH 198/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by TAINA MANAWANUI TEPANIA 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 ROTORUA on 20 March 2003

APPEARANCES

Miss T M Tepania – in person
Ms J A Smale - Rotorua District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Sergeant R Blomkamp – Rotorua New Zealand Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Taina Manawanui Tepania for a General Manager’s Certificate. The criteria to which this Authority must have regard in considering such an 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] This case revolves around two major issues. The first issue is the convictions recorded against the applicant. The second issue is the fact that she is currently not working in the hospitality industry.

[3] As far as the convictions are concerned, Miss Tepania has pointed out in her submission that convictions are but one aspect of the overall consideration. She has submitted that there are mitigating circumstances relating to her convictions which should be taken into account by the Authority.

[4] In general it can be said that Miss Tepania has had a reasonable amount of experience within the industry, although this was not well documented in the application. She has worked as a bar person in a variety of licensed premises. For
[4] over a year she was employed at “Tamaki Tours” which has licensed premises. She was able to produce a short reference from that organisation, which stated simply that she was an employee, and that her application for a bar manager’s certificate was supported. We are advised that at some stage Miss Tepania was appointed as a temporary manager, pending the outcome of her application. Miss Tepania had completed a course with the Hutt Valley Polytechnic.

[5] After leaving Tamaki Tours, she then worked at the “Casino” in Hamilton, and she has advised us that she was also appointed a temporary manager at that establishment. We have no record of that, and we have no reference from he employer.

[6] She left that job so that she could devote more time to her studies and her child. She is currently not employed in the industry. She says that she can get a job if she has a manager’s certificate. The Authority has always been of the view that it is more important that an applicant be employed in the industry and have the full committed support of an employer, and is able to show experience in managing those premises. We have always been nervous about the issuing of any manager’s certificate which might become part of any person’s CV or used as a ‘bankable resource’. The Authority takes the view that to issue a manager’s certificate when a person is not employed in the industry, is tantamount to giving a reference without knowing the ability of the applicant.

[7] The convictions relate to an excess blood alcohol conviction in January 1997. The level on that occasion was 119 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. There has been an explanation given as to Miss Tepania’s involvement with that offence. We note that the level was reasonably high, although the offending occurred over six years ago.

[8] A second conviction was imposed on Miss Tepania on 30 July 1999. Once again this was a drink driving offence. The level was twice the allowable limit at 885 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. We accept that it is nearly four years since that conviction. Four years we would have thought was an a minimum period of time in which to be conviction free.

[9] There is a third conviction for driving while disqualified. Miss Tepania states that she was unaware that she was entitled to obtain a limited licence, and she drove to work. The Judge took into account the extenuating circumstances and disqualified her for a further two months.

[10] These matters must be balanced against Miss Tepania’s other qualities. We take the view that notwithstanding the convictions, Miss Tepania should have learned from the experience. She should be in a position to do well in the industry. Miss Tepania said that she would be in employment within the next six weeks. We propose to adjourn the application for six months.

[11] If Miss Tepania is able to obtain employment in the industry, and has the full committed support of an employer, and has no other convictions recorded against her, we would be prepared to grant the application on the papers. However if she does not have such employment in the industry then we would require the matter to come back before a public hearing, or withdrawn.

[12] Ms Smale has helpfully pointed out to us that the file should in fact be transferred to Hamilton, so that an inspector from that District Licensing Agency can report to us on the employment issue.

[13] The application is adjourned accordingly.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 3rd day of April 2003

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Tepania.doc(afw)