Halpin, re [2003] NZLLA 249 (16 April 2003)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Halpin, re [2003] NZLLA 249 (16 April 2003)

Last Updated: 6 March 2010

Decision No. PH 249/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by TERESA MARY HALPIN 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 3 April 2003

APPEARANCES

Miss T M Halpin – applicant
Mr R S Putze – Wellington District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist
Sergeant G Verner – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Teresa Mary Halpin for a General Manager’s Certificate.

[2] There are five criteria to which the Authority must have regard when it considers such an application. These criteria are listed in s.121 of the Act and are:

1. The character and reputation of the applicant;
2. Any convictions recorded against the applicant;

100. Any experience and in particular, recent experience, that the applicant has had in managing any premises or conveyance, in respect of which a licence was in force;

4. Any relevant training, in particular recent training, that the applicant is undertaken, and any relevant qualifications that the applicant holds, and;

e) Any matters dealt with in any report made under Section 119.

[3] In terms of experience, Miss Halpin qualifies to be a general manager. She has worked for some months at "Downtown Backpackers", which was formerly "The Hotel Waterloo". She has been employed at "The Bay Plaza Hotel" since January 2002, and has provided a very positive reference from the general manager of that establishment. She is described as an excellent employee enjoying a good rapport with her fellow members of the staff, and with the guests. She is recommended as a suitable candidate for a General Manager’s Certificate. Miss Halpin has completed an approved course under the Sale of Liquor Act, and host responsibility with the Hospitality Training Company. Miss Halpin has also produced a reference from Grant McDonald. There is no real issue taken with her character and reputation.

[4] The Police have quite properly brought to the attention of the Authority, that on the 23 January 2002, Miss Halpin was stopped for a routine check. It was found that she had been drinking prior to driving. She produced an evidential breath test of 853 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. This is a high count, and it has had an impact on Miss Halpin. She has used alcohol differently since the conviction which was imposed on 4 February 2002. She does not drink as often, and she is very aware when other people drink to excess. As with others who have appeared before us, she would do anything to turn back the clock, but that is not possible.

[5] Such a conviction relates to the abuse of liquor. It cannot set a great example to the very persons whose harm one should be devoted to minimising, if one takes on the serious responsibility of running licensed premises on one’s own. In this case, in balancing the good features of the application, with the conviction, we take the view that the application is a little premature. The Sergeant referred us to Osborne’s decision LLA 2388/95 in which we said:

"Less serious convictions are also weighed, by way of an example as an isolated breath or blood alcohol conviction. In these and in similar cases we frequently indicate that a period of two years from the date of conviction may result in favourable consideration."

[6] We see no reason to depart from that general rule of thumb in this case, particularly because of the high level of alcohol in breath. On the other hand it seems inappropriate for Miss Halpin to have to reapply for her certificate. We therefore propose to adjourn the proceedings for nine months. This has some advantages. It will enable Miss Halpin to gain more experience, in particular by being appointed as temporary manager under s.128 of the Act from time to time. It will enable her performance to be monitored. The adjournment will be on the basis that if after nine months, when two years will almost have elapsed from the date of offending, there have been no other incidents, then we propose to grant the application on the papers. If any untoward matters are brought to our attention by the police or the inspector, then a further public hearing will be held.

[7] The application is adjourned for nine months.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 16th day of April 2003

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Halpin.doc(ab)