Joyce, re [2003] NZLLA 201 (3 April 2003)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Joyce, re [2003] NZLLA 201 (3 April 2003)

Last Updated: 28 February 2010

Decision No. PH 201/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by MIA ROSEANNA JOYCE 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

Ms M R Joyce - applicant
Ms J A Smale – Rotorua District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Sergeant R Blomkamp - New Zealand Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] When Parliament passed the Amendment to the Sale of Liquor Act in 1999, it provided that at all times when liquor was being sold or supplied to the public on any licensed premises, a manager would be on duty and responsible for compliance with the Act, and the conditions of the license. The obvious intention of Parliament was to not only increase the responsibilities on managers, but to increase the expectations that they would be persons of integrity who would know the law and uphold it. As a consequence the standards for managers have been considerably raised since the passing of the Amendment. Against that background, we turn to consider this application by Mia Roseanna Joyce for a General Manager’s Certificate.

[2] There are criteria which must be considered by the Authority when assessing the merits of the application. These criteria are contained in s.121 of the Act and 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.

[3] This application was filed in February 2000. Ms Joyce was asked for certain documentation. Because this was not provided, the application was put ‘on hold’. At the time of the application, Ms Joyce intended to work in a club known as the “Central Sports and Rugby League Club”. She had children who were involved with that club. Since the application has been reactivated, Ms Joyce has disclosed that she is carrying out two more or less permanent part time jobs. One is with “Café DNA”. This is a small café for which the sale of liquor is not the predominant purpose of the business. The second licensed establishment is a motel function centre where Ms Joyce has some responsibility as well.

[4] It is unfortunate that there is no appearance today from either of her employers and no references. Nevertheless Ms Joyce is clearly holding positions of some responsibility.

[5] There have been issues raised both by the Inspector and the Police. In the main they relate to Ms Joyce’s convictions. She has acknowledged that she had what could be described as a rather anti-social past, for which she places some of the blame on bad choice of partners.

[6] When she was aged about 25 in 1995, Ms Joyce received no less than four convictions during 1995. Some for wilful damage, some for drugs and some for shoplifting. The following year she was sentenced to imprisonment for six months for selling cannabis. That sentence was suspended for 12 months. It is accepted that all those convictions took place over seven years ago.

[7] However in May of last year, Ms Joyce was involved in another “dysfunctional” relationship. There was an issue involving the access to, and custody of, a child. According to the interview with the Police, the father of the child took the child to an inappropriate address. There was an assault on the child and two charges of wilful damage. As a consequence Ms Joyce was ordered to do community work of 80 hours and pay reparation. The convictions were recorded on 19 August 2002. They represent a period of further instability in Ms Joyce’s life. She is currently taking counselling. Some of that counselling is for anger management problems. A 12 week programme started on 12 February this year.

[8] Ms Joyce is currently participating fully with the programme and with other counselling, she feels comfortable with the way her life is at present. The issue is whether the Authority can be confident that if granted the responsibility of being able to run licensed premises on her own, she will:

• [a] Obey the law; and
• [b] Obey the conditions of the license
  

In other words is her current situation sufficiently stable for us to have that form of confidence?

[9] The issue turns on one of suitability. We have had some guidance in the past from decisions such as Osborn where it was stated that serious offending would require a "conviction free period" of up to five years, and that isolated offences might require a stand down period of two years. In this case we take the view that the convictions recorded in August 2002 were serious. They have resulted in counselling. That counselling has not yet been completed. There should still be a further period of time for Ms Joyce to show that she is capable of assuming the responsibility of running licensed premises. We are not confident about that at this time.

[10] In the event that an application for a General Manager’s Certificate is unsuccessful, that should not necessarily be the end of the matter. It would be our suggestion that if Ms Joyce were to wait for a period of approximately two years from the date of the last conviction, and provided she has the full committed support of an employer, at that time she might well wish to reapply for a manager’s certificate.

[11] In the meantime the application will be declined.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 3rd day of April 2003

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Joyce.doc(afw)