Rickus [2003] NZLLA 234 (14 April 2003)

Last Updated: 21 July 2010

Decision No. PH 234/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by MARAMA ORIWA RICKUS 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 PALMERSTON NORTH on 31 March 2003

APPEARANCES

Miss M O Rickus – applicant
Mrs C F Fouhy – Tararua District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Sergeant E G Fincham - NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Marama Oriwa Rickus 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 grounds 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; and
• [e] Any matters dealt with in any report made under s.119.
  

[2] In terms of experience, Miss Rickus worked for some 18 months with the “Masonic Hotel” in Woodville. For the last eight months she has been employed at the “Merrylees Hotel” on a part time basis working one night a week.

[3] Miss Rickus has completed a training module with Liquor Industry Licensing Advisors Limited, and during her interview with the District Licensing Agency Inspector, she demonstrated that she had sufficient knowledge of the Sale of Liquor Act.

[4] When she made her application, Miss Rickus advised that she had recent convictions, but she did not disclose all of her convictions. She did disclose that she had received four such convictions, whereas in fact there were a total of seven. But in the event we see nothing sinister in the omission. She freely acknowledged that she could not remember the times that she had come before the Court.

[5] Many of the convictions could be described as historical, although there were two involving the abuse of alcohol. Miss Rickus has a conviction in 1994 and in 1995 for driving with excessive breath alcohol content. They are sufficiently historical for any agency or the Authority to put them to one side on the basis that presumably Miss Rickus has learned her lesson.

[6] Of slightly more concern were convictions in 1996, and two years ago on 26 April 2001. Both these convictions involved an illegal substance. On one occasion Miss Rickus was convicted for possession of cannabis oil, and on the second occasion on 26 April 2001, she was convicted for the possession of cannabis.

[7] When she was interviewed by the Inspector, Miss Rickus acknowledged that she was still using drugs. She said she took drugs every second day to assist with sleep. She said that she had a very heavy workload studying. She confirmed when she gave evidence before us today that she was completing three papers at two tertiary institutions, and used to work until 4.00 - 5.00 in the morning. As a consequence she took illicit drugs to assist with her sleep patterns. She said that she had stopped taking these drugs in January of this year, but she has had no treatment or counselling.

[8] Regrettably the sale of liquor often goes hand in hand with the supply of drugs. That does not mean that this is such an occasion, but it has to be said that when we are looking at suitability for manager’s certificates we look to persons who have integrity and will obey the law. There is an unfortunate tendency for those who take drugs not to take any notice of the law.

[9] If we were to be satisfied as to the suitability of Miss Rickus we would need to know that she had given up drugs once and for all After all her previous convictions disclose a five year pattern of offending. For that reason we would not be able to grant the certificate today.

[10] It has been said in the past that any such finding is not infinite. There is no reason why a further application should not be made. Although previous guidelines have suggested a period of five years for serious offending, on this occasion we would have thought that provided Miss Rickus was drug free for some two years, and provided she had a certificate from either a medical person or a counsellor that she was drug free, then we would look at any application with greater confidence in her ability to manage licensed premises on her own. That is a matter for her and her personal choice.

[11] All we are prepared to say is that where there has been a history of drug taking if not alcohol abuse, and where that drug taking has recently ceased, we would need to be satisfied that it had done so and that there was no risk of potential managers turning a blind eye to breaches of the law or the licence.

[12] We decline the application today. We invite Miss Rickus to consider her position, and perhaps make an application in two year's time.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 16th day of April 2003

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Rickus.doc(afw)