James [2003] NZLLA 863 (13 November 2003)

Last Updated: 24 January 2012

Decision No. PH 863/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by DAVID PAUL JAMES 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 NEW PLYMOUTH on 28 October 2003

APPEARANCES

No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant
Mr M E Clearwater - New Plymouth District Licensing Agency Inspector -
in opposition
Sergeant T G Johnson - NZ Police - in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] Before the Authority is an application by David Paul James for a General Manager’s Certificate. Mr James was regarded by the District Licensing Agency Inspector as a suitable person to hold a certificate. He had a good knowledge of the Act, as well as four years experience in the industry working in at least two licensed premises. Mr James held a certificate that he had completed a course of training.

[2] In this case there was a Police objection because of charges which were currently before the Court. These charges are alleged to have occurred on 17 January 2000, and involved failing to advise Work and Income of a change of circumstances. In summary, the facts disclosed that Mr James continued to receive an Unemployment Benefit while he was working in the hospitality industry. The Police took the view, that the offending showed elements of dishonesty which brought his application for a General Manager’s Certificate into question.

[3] The convictions were entered in the District Court at New Plymouth on 23 January 2002, and 20 February 2002. On each charge Mr James was convicted and ordered to do 100 hours of community service.

[4] Mr James has not appeared to support his application, although messages have been left for him. It is not clear where he presently resides. The Authority takes the view that the offending itself is serious. Either Mr James needs to be present to explain it, or alternatively there must be a reasonable period where he can show that he has been conviction free.

[5] In this case the questions concerning his suitability have not been answered. In his absence the Authority has no option other than to decline the application, which is now refused.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 13th day of November 2003

B M Holmes

Deputy Secretary

James David.doc(afw)