Bradford, re [2003] NZLLA 302 (1 May 2003)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Bradford, re [2003] NZLLA 302 (1 May 2003)

Last Updated: 14 March 2010

Decision No. PH 302/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by DAVID CRAIG BRADFORD 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 NELSON on 26 March 2003

APPEARANCES:

Mr B A Jones – agent for applicant
Mrs A J Ward-Hamilton – Nelson District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist
Sergeant T V Walker – NZ Police – in opposition

RESERVED DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by David Craig Bradford for a General Manager’s Certificate. The application was filed with the District Licensing Agency on 11 February 2002. The application was opposed by the Police on the grounds that Mr Bradford had seven convictions between 1990 and 1998. Those convictions involved sexual offences, assault, possession of cannabis, contravening a Protection Order, driving with an excess breath alcohol level, and driving whilst disqualified. The excess breath alcohol level that was the subject of the 1998 charge was 860 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

[2] The application was also opposed on the ground that although Mr Bradford had indicated he had convictions, he failed to detail what those convictions were as required on his application form. The Police noted that the application form requires the applicant to answer the question whether the applicant has been convicted of any offence including traffic offences. Mr Bradford answered “no”.

[3] As a result of their opposition to the application the Police and the District Licensing Agency Inspector had discussions with Mr Brett Jones, a licensing consultant acting on behalf of Mr Bradford. An agreement was reached whereby Mr Bradford’s application would be withheld for six months then reassessed at the end of that period. Mr Bradford agreed that the following matters would be undertaken during that period:

• ♦ He would undergo alcoholism and drug addiction assessments.
• ♦ He would present a management plan to the District Licensing Agency, and set high performance standards for the premises.
• ♦ Brett Jones and Associates Limited would audit the premises every four weeks – or as agreed.
• ♦ Mr Bradford would act as a temporary manager for the six month period.
  

[4] The Police communicated that agreement to the Secretary of the Nelson District Licensing Agency in a letter dated 31 October 2002.

[5] At 1.37 pm on 20 July 2002 Mr Bradford was stopped by a Police patrol for driving with an excess breath alcohol level of 713 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. He told the Police that he had been drinking at the “Sports Café” where he works.

[6] Five days later on 25 July at 4.15 am Mr Bradford went to the home of a woman with whom he had had a relationship for four years. She had a Protection Order against Mr Bradford. He gained entry through an unlocked door. The Police were called, and Mr Bradford was charged with burglary and breaching the Protection Order. The burglary charge was later withdrawn. The entry in the Police charge book records that Mr Bradford was moderately intoxicated and that he had been drinking one hour before at the “Sports Café”.

[7] In her Victim Impact Statement the woman stated:

“I have not slept for weeks. I live in constant fear of him coming around to the house or stopping me on the street. I have already lost a good job because of him. He does not seem to care that there is a Protection Order in place. I don’t know what else to do if he keeps breaching. I thought the order would stop him ....”

[8] Mr Bradford was convicted on 5 August 2002 of breaching the Protection Order and driving with an excess breath alcohol level. In respect of the offence of breaching the Protection Order he was fined $700, and his file was endorsed with a final warning. The Nelson District Court issued a Final Protection Order on 27 August 2002. In respect of the excess breath alcohol charge he pleaded “guilty”, and he was convicted and fined $850 with Court costs of $130. He was also disqualified from driving for six months. As a result of those convictions the Police wrote to the Secretary of the District Licensing Agency on 31 October 2002 reactivating their opposition to Mr Bradford’s application for a General Manager’s Certificate.

[9] At the hearing, Mr Bradford said that he is employed as the business manager of the “Sports Café” in Hardy Street. Twenty staff are employed on the premises, of whom seven hold General Manager’s Certificates.

[10] He is currently in a stable relationship. He lives with his partner and his son and daughter. He has worked in the hospitality industry all of his working life. Before that his father had owned hotels, and he had been brought up in hotels in different locations in New Zealand.

[11] Mr Bradford said although he did not declare his convictions on the application form, he had spoken about them to the District Licensing Agency Inspector, and later to the Police and his liquor licensing consultant. He said he did not attempt to deny the convictions, but he could not accurately answer the questions.

[12] He said that in July 2002 he was at a club when a staff member fell and badly cut her head. He was asked to take her to the hospital in his car. He was returning from the hospital when he was caught by the Police for drink driving.

[13] Mr Bradford explained that the woman who was the subject of the Protection Order had previously lived in his house with a number of other ‘flatmates’. He denied that she was his partner. When his 18 year old son came to live with him the relationship with the woman deteriorated. He had to ask her to leave. He said that on the day prior to his arrest she had made a number of telephone calls to his address asking for him. She was sounding increasingly distressed. He went to her home to see that she was all right. We reject that explanation. To visit a woman’s home at 4.15 am who had a Protection Order against him to check on her welfare defies credulity. He said he did not defend the charge because he was advised that it would cost him $1,500. He could not afford that sum of money.

[14] Mr Bradford said that his drug and alcohol assessment showed that he was not a regular drinker. He only drinks when out with friends. However, he recognised that a pattern was emerging from both his drink-drive convictions, and he has put in place strategies to deal with it.

[15] He produced a certificate of achievement certifying that he had completed units 4646 and 16705 with Brett Jones and Associates Limited. When he was convicted he offered his resignation to his current employer. It was not accepted. Mr Bradford produced a number of letters in support of his application from his employer, patrons, and staff members.

[16] Mr Allan Robert McNabb is the owner of the “Sports Café”. He is also a partner in the “Turf Hotel” at Richmond. He has been in the industry for 12 years. He has known Mr Bradford for a number of years, and had previously offered him jobs. He said that he has never had any concerns about Mr Bradford’s standards of operation or his compliance with the Sale of Liquor Act. He said that he would continue to employ Mr Bradford regardless of the outcome of the present hearing.

[17] Mr Jones submitted that there had been some tumultuous events in Mr Bradford’s life, and he had made significant efforts to put them behind him. He said there was no dispute as regards his work performance. Mr Bradford’s character and reputation had been challenged by his personal history but that had been answered by the letters of support from his employer, family, and customers.

[18] Mr Jones submitted that Mr Bradford’s various convictions related to poor judgement and relationships, rather than matters under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. Mr Bradford is an activist as opposed to a reflector. He takes intuitive action. His excess breath alcohol driving conviction in 1998 was the result of problems with the car. He had reacted to a situation rather than considering the matter, and had inappropriately driven the car.

[19] Mr Jones said that there was no evidence of violence in respect of the Protection Order against Mr Bradford. He had been frank when questioned, and there had been no dishonesty by him. For the first time for a very long time he is now in a stable relationship.

Authority’s Conclusion and Reasons

[20] In considering such an application, the Authority is required to have regard to the criteria which are listed 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.

[21] The principal issues in this case are the character and reputation of the applicant, and the convictions recorded against him. He has completed the relevant training under Brett Jones and Associates Limited.

[22] Although he has had recent experience as a business manager working in licensed premises, he has not worked as a temporary manager pursuant to s.128 of the Act. Although Mr McNabb said that he knew Mr Bradford when he was the manager of “The Victorian Rose”. Letters from the former owner of the premises and a former customer describe Mr Bradford as having been a bar manager at that establishment. Both those letters supported Mr Bradford’s application, as did a number of others.

[23] Mr McNabb said that he is a good worker, and he has done everything that he has asked of him. He has never known Mr Bradford to drink at work. However, Mr Bradford said he had been drinking at work prior to both incidents that led to his two most recent convictions. In respect of the breach of the Protection Order his condition was described as moderately intoxicated. When the Police spoke to him on the street he said that he had just finished work 15 minutes before.

[24] The Police and the Inspector, not unnaturally, had concerns about Mr Bradford’s convictions. He was given an opportunity to demonstrate that his life was back on course, and for the enforcement agencies to have a measure of confidence in him. To put it bluntly, he “blew it”.

[25] In Deejay Enterprises Limited LLA 531 – 532/97 the Authority stated:

"The guiding hand or hands-on operator of any company or the potential holder of a General Manager’s Certificate now receive greater scrutiny from both the Police and other reporting agencies. Character and reputation are closely examined. The law and human desires of patrons frequently tug in different directions. The Police cannot be everywhere. Little but a licensee’s or manager’s character and suitability may stand between upholding the law and turning a blind eye. Self imposed standards in accordance with the law must be set by licensees and holders of General Manager’s Certificates who control and manage licensed premises."

And in Osborne LLA 2388/95 the Authority said:

"Without fettering ourselves in this or other applications, it may be helpful if we indicate that we commonly look for a five year period free of any serious conviction or any conviction relating to or involving the abuse of alcohol or arising in the course of an applicant’s duty on licensed premises."

[26] Our main concern is that if we grant this application, (notwithstanding the support from Mr McNabb, customers, and employees), we would in our view be reducing the standards that we are trying to set to ensure that licensed premises are run by people who have reasonably unblemished personal lives, and are therefore able to set an example to others.

[27] Mr Bradford has not achieved that high standard. The aggravating features in this case were the consumption of alcohol at work, the breaching of a Court Order, the driving of a vehicle while intoxicated, and his failure to take advantage of the agreement. Such conduct does not accord with the self imposed standards of upholding the law required by managers of licensed premises.

[28] After taking into account the previous decisions of the Authority, including the guidelines that are suggested in Osborne’s case, LLA 2388/95, we believe in Mr Bradford’s case that a period of three years should elapse from the last date of offending. If Mr Bradford is able to show that he has been conviction-free during that period of time, then a further application could be made after 5 August 2005. At that time we would also expect to see a satisfactory alcohol and drug assessment for Mr Bradford before we would issue him with a General Manager’s Certificate.

[29] In the meantime we must decline the application.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 1st day of May 2003

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

dbradford.doc(aw)