Dickie, re [2003] NZLLA 545 (31 July 2003)

Last Updated: 2 October 2010

Decision No. PH 545/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by ELIZABETH BERNADETTE DICKIE pursuant to s.118 of the Act for a Club Manager’s Certificate

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge E W Unwin
Member: Mr J C Crookston

HEARING at AUCKLAND on 16 July 2003

APPEARANCES

Ms E B Dickie - applicant
Mr D W Sara – Auckland District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Sergeant P Kaveney – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Elizabeth Bernadette Dickie for a Club Manager’s Certificate. At the commencement of this decision we remind ourselves that the object of the Act as contained in s.4 is the establishment of a reasonable system of control over the sale and supply of liquor to the public, with the aim of contributing to the reduction of liquor abuse.

[2] In this case the only criteria at issue is the convictions recorded against the applicant as set out in s.121(1)(b) of the Act. To some extent those convictions have brought into question Ms Dickie’s suitability to hold a Club Manager’s Certificate.

[3] The evidence shows that Ms Dickie has two historical convictions for drinking and driving and one reasonably recent one. The historical convictions are over 25 years in age. In 1977 Ms Dickie was convicted in the Auckland District Court for driving with an excessive blood alcohol level. No blood/alcohol figures were shown, although she was disqualified for 15 months. In 1978 Ms Dickie was then convicted for refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken at a hospital. Once again she was disqualified for 18 months. The situation was that on 4 February 2001, Ms Dickie was apprehended for driving with excessive breath alcohol content. The level on that occasion was 994 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. It is noted that this is over twice the allowable limit. Evidence has been given to explain that Ms Dickie and others were involved with an all day barbecue. There was some form of altercation, and Ms Dickie decided to drive and was apprehended.

[4] Against that background, the evidence is quite overwhelming in favour of Ms Dickie being granted a Club Manager’s Certificate. She has been associated with the “Newmarket Workingman’s Club” for a large number of years. This club is based in Newmarket. The evidence shows that Ms Dickie has worked as a voluntary bar person for at least 10 years. For the last six years or so she has received remuneration. She is the only person in the club who does so. There are only about 105 members of the club, and it is clear that the facilities are not too difficult to control. According to the president of the club Ms Dickie is extremely competent in observing the club liquor licensing requirements. Guests of members are signed in regularly, and there is control over excessive drinking by patrons. Any suggestion of disorderly conduct or aggressive behaviour is nipped in the bud. According to other persons who have given evidence before us, Ms Dickie is treated with great respect and is a person who has a high esteem amongst the general members.

[5] When she was questioned, Ms Dickie displayed surprise to any suggestion that she might have a drinking problem. She described herself as a social drinker who might have a glass or two during her tea break. That evidence came as something of a surprise to the President of the club. It may well be that in the future, Ms Dickie will not only be unable to drink while working, but also, during any tea break.

[6] This is a difficult balancing exercise. It has to be balanced against the object of the Act. We have said before that New Zealand’s drinking culture has become defined by many factors and social changes. Its manifestation is often seen in binge drinking or drinking harmfully. If the object of the Sale of Liquor Act is to be taken seriously, then eventually standards of good drinking behaviour will have to be set. Because people are inclined to be tolerant of alcohol abuse then the focus must inevitably fall on the law. If the law becomes tolerant towards such behaviour then the object of the Act will lose credibility. If managers of licensed premises are shown to lack discipline then why should patrons take the issue seriously. The behaviour currently exhibited by younger drinkers is but a symptom of the malaise. It is the Authority’s duty to try and ensure a reduction in liquor abuse. When we balance that against the enthusiastic support of the President and members of the club and Ms Dickie’s long service with the club, and the fact that two of the drinking convictions are historical, we are prepared to reduce the five year stand-down period which is suggested in Osborne, LLA 2388/95. We think a period of three years from the date of the last incident would be more appropriate.

[7] We therefore have decided to adjourn these proceedings for nine months. If during the next nine months there are no further incidents then we are prepared to grant the application. If there are concerns raised, then there will have to be a further public hearing. We record that there is no reason that we can see why Ms Dickie cannot be appointed as a temporary manager from time to time pending the expiration of the nine month period.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 31st day of July 2003

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Dickie.doc(nl)