Donaldson v Tu Enterprises Limited [2003] NZLLA 977 (17 December 2003)

Last Updated: 26 January 2012

Decision No. PH 977/2003 –
PH 979-2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to s.132 of the Act for suspension or cancellation of on-licence number 023/ON/110/2001 issued to TU ENTERPRISES LIMITED in respect of premises situated at 37 - 45 Lake Road, Rotorua, known as “Lake House Hotel”

BETWEEN HENRIETTA SHREEVE DONALDSON

(Police Officer of Rotorua)

First Applicant

AND TU ENTERPRISES LIMITED

First Respondent

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to s.135 of the Act for cancellation of General Manager’s Certificate number GM/023/108/2000 issued to IAN NEVILLE FRITH

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to s.135 of the Act for suspension of General Manager’s Certificate number GM 023/115/2000 issued to TERESA MARGARET SCALLY

BETWEEN JULIE ANN SMALE

(Rotorua District Licensing Agency Inspector)

Second Applicant

AND IAN NEVILLE FRITH

Second Respondent

AND TERESA MARGARET SCALLY

Third Respondent

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

HEARING at ROTORUA on 11 December 2003

APPEARANCES

Senior Sergeant D W Donaldson – NZ Police – first applicant
Ms J A Smale – Rotorua District Licensing Agency Inspector – second applicant
Mr I N Frith – for first and second respondents
Mrs T M Scally – third respondent

RESERVED DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

Introduction

[1] There are three applications before the Authority for determination. The first application is brought by Henrietta Shreeve Donaldson a licensing officer with the New Zealand Police. It is for the suspension or cancellation of an on-licence issued in respect of a hotel situated at Lake Road, Rotorua, known as “Lake House Hotel”. The licence is held by Tu Enterprises Limited which is a private company owned and directed by Ian Neville Frith and his wife, Teresa Margaret Scally.

[2] The second and third applications are brought by Julie Ann Smale, a Liquor Licensing Inspector with the Rotorua District Licensing Agency. She applies for the cancellation of the manager’s certificate issued to Ian Neville Frith, and for the suspension of the manager’s certificate issued to Teresa Margaret Scally. The certificates were issued on the 13 and 20 September 2000 respectively.

[3] The grounds for the application to suspend or cancel the on-licence are:

• (a) That the licensed premises have been conducted in breach of the following sections of the Act.
  

168(1)(a) (Allowing an intoxicated person to be, or to remain, on licensed premises), (Allowing persons on licensed premises outside licensing hours).

(b) That the licensed premises have been conducted in breach of the following conditions of the licence.

No conditions were specified. A schedule of events which was attached was referred to. The normal condition referred to is the condition requiring the licensee to ensure that the provisions of the Act relating to the sale and supply of liquor to prohibited persons are observed. Prohibited persons are defined as minors or intoxicated persons.

(c) That the conduct of the licensee is such as to show that it is not a suitable entity to hold the licence. The application referred to a protection order in place between the two directors. In addition it is alleged that Mr Frith is currently facing charges of assaulting Mrs Scally and breaching the protection order.

(d) That the licensed premises are being used in a disorderly manner so as to be obnoxious to neighbouring residents or the public.

[4] The grounds for the application to cancel Mr Frith’s manager’s certificate are:

(a) That he has failed to conduct the licensed premises in a proper manner. In particular it is alleged that he allowed intoxicated persons to be, or to remain, on licensed premises.

(b) That his conduct is such as to show that he is not a suitable person to hold the certificate. In particular it is alleged that he allowed intoxicated persons on his premises and openly said so in contravention of s.168 of the Act.

[5] The ground for the application to suspend Mrs Scally’s manager’s certificate is:

That she has failed to conduct the licensed premises in a proper manner. In particular it is alleged that three intoxicated persons were found on the premises when she was the duty manager.

[6] The applications were filed with the Authority on 30 October 2003. They were not very clearly drafted, although that there was no suggestion that the respondents had not been fairly and fully informed of the allegations. The applications evolved from a series of events over a period of about nine months, including more recent incidents, about which evidence was given. The Police alleged that the directors of the licensee company were in a dysfunctional relationship which was having a detrimental effect on the management of the premises. It was further alleged that persons were being allowed on the premises after hours, and intoxication and disorder had reached a level where intervention was necessary.

[7] The respondents accept limited responsibility for what has happened. They say that if the law has been broken it was not deliberate but was based on considerations such as the safety of the patrons. Mr Frith in particular, alleges a form of discrimination if not persecution arising from an incident in Easter 2003, following which he made a complaint to the Police.

[8] The respondents submitted that when they are visited by the Police, or Maori Wardens or Inspectors, they might not be able to carry out their normal duties because they had to attend to the officers. Consequently, offences such as not emptying the bar on time, or allowing intoxicated patrons to remain on premises, may get committed. We have not heard an explanation like this before and did not consider it had great merit. The respondents nevertheless argued that the incidents were not sufficiently serious to warrant sanctions being taken against them.

[9] Mr Frith and Mrs Scally have been married for 14 of the 25 years they have been together. They purchased the “Lake Tavern” in 2000, and renamed it as the “Lake House Hotel” because they did not want to carry the connotations sometimes associated with the word ‘tavern’. The premises are best described as a neighbourhood hotel which has been in existence for many years. It is located in the Ohinemutu suburb of Rotorua. There is backpacker accommodation as well as the normal facilities associated with a neighbourhood hotel.

[10] When they acquired the business, neither Mr Frith nor Mrs Scally had had any recent experience in the running of licensed premises. Neither of them are drinkers, and they were initially quite disturbed by the sort of behaviour which had apparently been taken for granted by the previous proprietor. They spent considerable capital restoring the building and facilities, and they imposed a number of house rules to avoid gang confrontations. They applied for a midnight closing time so they would not have to put up with late drinking times and associated problems. At the start they did not employ bouncers or security, but tried to cope themselves. They were hoping that the “pub” would become the “local”. Regrettably, the stress has taken its toll, and late last year, their relationship deteriorated to the extent that Mr Frith now lives away from the premises.

[11] It seemed to us that many of the problems which have surfaced during the year, might well have stemmed from the marriage breakdown. The Authority is required to examine each of the allegations to see whether they have been established, and whether they warrant orders being made. We have not included instances where there is no probative evidence of breaches of the Act or proved examples of unsuitability. For example a domestic assault on 5 October 2003 between a husband and wife disclosed no evidence that the parties had been drinking at the “Lake House Hotel”, although it is their venue of choice. In the same way we have declined to refer to an allegation of intoxication on 24 October last, because of concerns about the process in the way the intoxicated patron was located. The incidents which merit comment are now set out in the order in which they happened.

The First Incident on which the Applications are Based

[12] On 20 February 2003, Mr Frith was on duty as manager. At 10.20 pm he rang the Police to say that four people were fighting. The fight was over by the time the Police arrived. However, the fight flared up again after the Police left, and at 11.30 pm Mr Frith again rang the Police. According to Mr Frith, a group of non-local patrons were intimidating others. On the second occasion the main offender was taken outside, and he was able to leave in a taxi before the Police arrived.

The Second Incident on which the Applications are Based

[13] On Easter Sunday 20 April 2003, at about 1.00 am, Detective Sergeant G M Hawkins visited “The Lake House Hotel”. The front door was unlocked. All the lights were on. He counted 22 persons in the bar, the majority of whom were still consuming alcohol. Some had near full bottles or jugs in front of them. When spoken to, the duty manager, Mr Frith, said he was waiting for taxis to come, and that the people were going to remain in the bar until the taxis arrived. He said he had called the taxis some time ago. He argued that everyone was quite happy. In the ensuing discussion Mr Frith said it was nonsense to have to evict the patrons, and he was not going to do it.

[14] The Police had to leave to attend another incident, but they advised Mr Frith to clear the bar. When they returned 25 minutes later, the doors were locked and the bar was closed down. Mr Frith was interviewed by Ms J A Smale the District Licensing Agency Inspector. He told her that if he sent the people outside, they would disturb the neighbours. The Police then discovered a group of four men at the side of the building near the footpath. One was on the ground grossly intoxicated. Three of the men were arrested for disorderly behaviour, breach of the peace, and intoxication. Mr Frith tried to interfere but was warned that he might be arrested for obstruction, and desisted.

[15] The following Tuesday, Mr Frith rang Ms J A Smale and demanded a meeting with her boss and the Police. He said he wanted to sort out the fiasco and referred to the Police as “idiots”. He said she was “criminally responsible for what happened after they left the premises”. He was abusive, angry and agitated and hung up on her. A meeting was held and Mr Frith repeated his comments. He again became agitated and was told to settle down. He stated that the person who had passed out, was a retard who was drunk, but had been allowed to dance to the band, but nobody had served him with liquor. Mr Frith repeated that he was unhappy with the way the situation had been handled.

[16] On 6 May 2003, Ms Smale wrote to Mr Frith advising him that because of his actions on the Easter Sunday, she was applying for the suspension of his manager’s certificate. On 13 May 2003, Mr Frith replied and repeated his belief that the Police actions were inappropriate and inconsistent with the Sale of Liquor Act. He said that Ms Smale’s actions were severe and unhelpful. As a result he said that some patrons had driven home while intoxicated, and there was excessive noise and behaviour outside the premises.

[17] However, Mr Frith then outlined some “in house” rules he had implemented such as no jugs or large bottles after 11.30 pm, an evacuation bell at 12.15 am, and informing patrons that they had to leave by 12.30 am. He asked that the incident be treated as isolated so that all could learn from it. Ms Smale replied two days later. She said that she was pleased with the actions Mr Frith was taking and would not pursue the application. However, she placed Mr Frith on notice that if the Agency believed that he was operating outside the law, she would not hesitate to take follow up action.

[18] On the day the letter was received, Mr Frith was summonsed to the Court for breaches of ss.168 and 170 of the Act. The case was heard before Judge C J McGuire on 12 November last. The Judge noted that at the close of the case, the prosecuting Sergeant had acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr Frith had allowed intoxicated persons to remain on licensed premises, and that charge was dismissed. On the other hand he found that Mr Frith had allowed about eight patrons to be on the premises after hours. In discharging Mr Frith the Judge noted that he had become agitated, and that this was not appropriate for a manager or licensee of licensed premises. He warned Mr Frith to keep his agitation under control or there would be further ‘head to head’ clashes with the authorities.

[19] The prosecution seems to have had a profound impact on Mr Frith. Six months later he still insists that the Police actions were over the top. He blamed the Police for what he called disorder and nuisance caused by the second visit on the Easter Sunday. He repeated a number of times that up until this moment, there had never been a problem with his premises. He implied that had he not complained about the behaviour of the Police and the Inspector, all the other incidents might not have been reported. In other words he felt victimised.

The Third Incident on which the Applications are Based

[20] On 29/30 May 2003 at about midnight, Sergeant S A Fraser was called to an assault at the “Lake House Hotel”. A patron had become argumentative at the bar. When Mrs Scally approached him, he struck out at her hitting her in the head with the heel of his hand. She fell to the ground. He also hit Mr Frith. Sergeant Fraser believed that Mrs Scally was intoxicated because he could small liquor on her breath, and because her speech was slurred and slow. The evidence which we accepted, was that Mrs Scally does not drink. It is possible that she may have smelt of alcohol from working in the bar.

[21] Although the Sergeant suggested that there were a number of patrons who were intoxicated, there was no attempt to identify those people, and in the light of his comments about Mrs Scally, the evidence given will not form the basis of any order by the Authority.

[22] On leaving, the Sergeant noticed an intoxicated male named Darrin Wharekura lying on the ramp outside the side doors. He did not have the resources to do anything about him. According to Mr Frith, Mr Wharekura had been refused entry because of his state of intoxication. He asked if he could use the toilet and was allowed to. Subsequently he was found asleep in the toilets, and was escorted out. Later the next morning at about 4.00 am, Mr Wharekura was found on the second floor landing trying to get into a window. He was charged with burglary and sentenced to imprisonment. He said he was looking for food.

The Fourth Incident on which the Applications are Based

[23] On 12 June 2003, the Police, Maori Wardens, Toi Te Ora Public Health and the District Licensing Agency made a combined visit to licensed premises. They arrived at “The Lake House Hotel” at about 9.40 pm. Mr Frith had heard that there might be a problem between the members of the Mongrel Mob and the Black Power gangs. He had visited the Police in the morning seeking assistance. He believed that the arrival of the group was the fuse which lit the powder keg.

[24] Among the incidents witnessed by Ms Smale and Mrs H S Donaldson was a scuffle near the band in a corridor. Punches were thrown. A band speaker was tipped over. The participants were removed. Then a young female lit a gang bandanna and circled it over her head. It was put out, although the level of tension increased considerably. A number of intoxicated persons were identified, but there was difficulty in having all of them removed.

[25] Outside, the woman who had lit the fire, punched a male. She was apprehended and taken to the Police van where she continued to yell and scream. Three persons were observed to leave the bar with open bottles in their hands. Ms Smale observed a woman fall flat on her face although Mr Frith insisted that she had slipped and was not intoxicated. Ms Smale told Mr Frith that he appeared to have lost control of the premises. He said that a number of intoxicated persons had just arrived before the Police.

[26] That night a total of four persons were arrested for disorderly behaviour and intoxication. A few days later Ms Smale wrote to Tu Enterprises Limited about the visit. Among other suggested improvements, she recommended that a security company be employed. On 24 June last Mr Frith replied. He said that the Inspector's concerns were completely justified, and shared by management and staff. He agreed with the suggestion about security. He wrote:

“On this night in particular your timing was impeccable, as you and the other agencies were able to witness with me an hour of general mayhem, quickly and professionally deal with it and at the same time make it known that intoxication will not be tolerated.”

[27] When he gave evidence, Mr Frith described the event as “bewildering”.

The Fifth Incident on which the Applications are Based

[28] On 25 September 2003, Ms Smale visited the premises with the Police. She observed two persons leaving the premises with bottles. A sixteen-year-old who had been on the premises was spoken to. A woman who was thought to be intoxicated said that she was the boy’s Auntie, and that he had gone inside to use the toilet.

The Sixth Incident on which the Applications are Based

[29] On Friday 26 September 2003 Sergeant C S Peers stopped a motor vehicle. He had earlier seen the driver in the “Lake House Hotel” and the car in the car park. The driver recorded a breath/alcohol reading of 1184 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The Sergeant noted that one of the passengers who was also grossly intoxicated had been in the “Lake House Hotel” at about 10.00 pm that night.

The Seventh Incident on which the Applications are Based

[30] On 1 October 2003, Mr Frith was arrested for allegedly assaulting Mrs Scally and breaching the protection order. He was released on bail with conditions that he not associate with Mrs Scally except for work between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm, and that he reside at a different nominated address in Rotorua. Mr Frith is currently on remand to appear again on 20 February 2004. On 15 October 2003, Mr Frith alleged that Mrs Scally had assaulted him. He said he did not want to make a formal complaint, but wanted the matter noted.

The Eighth Incident on which the Applications are Based

[31] On 2 October 2003, a large Tangi for a group of children who had tragically died in a car accident had ended. A form of wake took place at the “Lake House Hotel”. Sergeant Peers made a visit at about 10.40 pm. He spoke with two males whom he considered were intoxicated but did not draw them to the attention of the duty manager. Two people were arrested for obstruction.

[32] About half an hour later there had been an assault by one woman on another. The victim was taken to hospital by ambulance. The offender was considered to be grossly intoxicated. Management called the Police. Acting Sergeant N S Willis found a large number of people fighting at the front of the premises. The crowd’s anger was directed at a person known as Dean Morrison who managed to break free and run into the hotel. A person in the car park was arrested for intoxication.

[33] Quite a number of people were considered to be intoxicated, but no attempt was made to remove and identify all of them. One 24 year old from Taupo was regarded as grossly intoxicated as he could not stand without assistance. He was arrested for intoxication. Acting Sergeant Willis told Mrs Scally, the manager on duty, that the band was to stop, and the premises were to be closed. Mr Frith thought the Police should have used more discretion in the circumstances.

The Ninth Incident on which the Applications are Based

[34] On 3 October 2003, a 34-year-old woman was discovered in the bar purchasing a drink. She said she had been in the bar about an hour. Her eyes were glazed and her speech was repetitive and loud. Mrs Scally was the duty manager, and she agreed that the patron was intoxicated. Mrs Scally was warned about allowing intoxicated patrons on licensed premises. The patron was told to leave.

The Tenth Incident on which the Applications are Based

[35] On Saturday 4 October 2003, at about 8.00 pm, a patron was told by Mrs Scally to leave because he was intoxicated. He was found in the premises two hours later and charged with trespass. His case alleging trespass is due to be heard in March 2004. Mrs Scally said he must have come back into the bar without her noticing.

The Eleventh Incident on which the Applications are Based

[36] On Sunday 5 October 2003, the Police were called to the hotel because of a complaint of intentional damage. The person responsible had had a fight in the premises. He had been ordered out and had then broken a few of the windows at the entrance to the hotel.

The Twelfth Incident on which the Applications are Based

[37] Ms Clare Matthews is one of a number of Maori Wardens appointed under the Maori Community Development Act 1962, and committed to helping her people avoid offending. One of the ways of doing this is to target access to alcohol, and show a presence in licensed premises. She gave evidence that on four occasions between 5 October 2003, and 30 November 2003, she visited the “Lake House Hotel”. All visits were made after 12.30 am. On three of the occasions, patrons were still drinking, although staff were cleaning up. Although Mr Frith suggested that the patrons were actually bar staff, Ms Matthews was very clear about her observations.

[38] On their own, the incidents might not have amounted to much, as the visits were made quite soon after the premises were required to be vacated. However, the cumulative effect shows that the licensee was continuing to ignore the requirements of the Act. We thought that Mr Frith displayed little respect for the Warden.

The Thirteenth Incident on which the Applications are Based

[39] On Friday 17 October 2003, Constable T E Bennett attended a domestic dispute. He took a seven-page statement from the victim aged 16. The victim said that she had been drinking at the “Lake House Hotel” earlier that evening with her 21-year-old partner and his 15-year-old cousin. Before they went to the hotel, they had been drinking at a friend’s place. Although the victim had no particular reason to lie about drinking at the hotel, Mr Frith categorically denied that it was possible for the youngsters to have been allowed entry to the premises. By this time, Armourguard had been contracted by the hotel to provide security services. In the light of the factual dispute, and bearing in mind that Mr Frith gave evidence the allegation cannot be used as the basis for any order.

The Fourteenth Incident on which the Applications are Based

[40] On 23 October 2003, there was a motor vehicle accident in Ranolf Street in Rotorua. The driver returned a reading of 498 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. He was aged sixteen years. He said he had been drinking with his uncle at the “Lake House Hotel”. Despite the evidence given by Mr Frith the minor’s presence in the hotel was confirmed by the staff. It is clear that he was not actually served liquor by the staff, but presumably obtained it through his uncle.

[41] Later that night a female driver was breath tested and recorded a level of 1178 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. She said that she had had her last drink at the “Lake House Hotel”. While we accept that the evidence may not be reliable, we have generally found that the statistics resulting from last drink surveys provide corroboration of a management regime which is flawed. Mr Frith acknowledged that the driver was at the hotel, and said that her two associates were refused entry because of their intoxication, and had waited outside for her for over an hour.

[42] On Friday 24 October 2003, the Police visited the hotel. Three persons were spoken to in the car park. All were considered to be intoxicated but there was no actual proof that they had been in the hotel. Alternatively there was no evidence that the signs of intoxication which they were displaying, were present when they were in the hotel. Consequently, the Authority has not relied upon the incident.

The Fifteenth Incident on which the Applications are Based

[43] On 31 October 2003, a minor aged 17 was found in the bar. He admitted he had sneaked in the front door. He had his own liquor with him. Mr Frith was the duty manager and received a warning. He said he thought he had been vetted by the door security.

[44] By this time Mr Frith was aware that the applications for suspension and/or cancellation had been filed. He rang the Police Licensing Officer and spoke with her for 45 minutes. Once again he brought up the incident of the previous Easter. He said he continued to keep patrons who may have become intoxicated, inside, waiting for taxis to ensure they were safe. He described the Sale of Liquor Act as “politically correct rubbish”.

Authority’s Conclusion and Reasons

[45] A review of all the evidence shows that many of the allegations have been established. The hotel has not been well managed. Although it may be regarded as a difficult premises, it is governed by the object of the Act in the same way as all licensed premises. There are at least five incidents where intoxicated persons have been found on the premises in breach of s.168(1)(a) of the Act. There were five occasions where persons were found on licensed premises after the 30 minute “drink up” time allowed for in s.170 of the Act. There were two occasions when minors were found to have been in the bar.

[46] In terms of the conduct of the hotel, there is anecdotal evidence of three patrons found to have breath alcohol levels in excess of the allowable limit. Two of them were grossly intoxicated. There were proved allegations of fighting, intentional damage, and persons leaving the premises with liquor. Then in particular, there is Mr Frith’s attitude to the agencies and the law, coupled with his fixation about the Easter Sunday incident. Finally, of course, there is the relationship difficulty currently being experienced by the two directors.

[47] In terms of the fourth ground under s.132 of the Act, we are not prepared to make an order as there is no actual evidence that the running of the hotel has become obnoxious to the neighbouring residents or the public. Mr Frith went to great lengths to test the neighbouring sentiments. The hotel has a good community support. We feel sure that the hotel if well managed, would be an asset to Ohinemutu, and greater Rotorua. A cancellation order would be quite unreasonable.

[48] Mrs Scally’s involvement as duty manager was limited to the incidents on 2, 3, and 4 October. She left Rotorua thirty years ago and her return home has meant a lot to her. She has great pride in what has been achieved with the hotel. No one hearing her story could fail to be moved by it. It may be that she and her husband are still going through a form of grieving. Mrs Scally impressed us that she could be a strong manager, although from what we heard, we were surprised that only eight or so trespass orders have been made. The issue will be whether lessons from the hearing are learned. We note that a liquor licensing consultant has been brought in to assist.

[49] Mr Frith displayed his frustration if not anger at the hearing. We regret to say that he also continued to display a lack of understanding of his obligations to the law. The experiences over these past few months do not seem to have taught him anything. He expects others to give him advice but then seems unable to accept it.

[50] We accept that the assessment of intoxication is a subjective test. There may be occasions when a person can appear to be sober and then quite quickly display signs of intoxication. A licensee will not be penalised if that happens, but once the signs are there, the licensee has a duty to take reasonable steps to remove the person either from the licensed premises or to a place of safety. We reiterate that it is desirable for the Police to take any person suspected of being intoxicated out of the bar in order to have his or her opinion verified by another officer and the manager. To allow intoxicated patrons to stay in a bar to await a taxi, or allow minors to use the bar toilet, might be a friendly thing to do, but it will inevitably bring a licensee into conflict with the law. It will also lead the patrons to the belief that the rules are made to be broken. There would be no difficulty in having a place of safety specifically set aside in the hotel. Mr Frith stated that with the help of the Inspector, he was planning to do this.

[51] When Parliament passed the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act 1999, it amended s.115(1) to emphasise the fact that a manager must be on duty at all times when liquor was being sold or supplied. In the future all managers would be responsible for ensuring that the premises complied not only with the Act, but also with the conditions of the governing licence.

[52] Prior to the amendment, this duty had been shared with licensees. As a result of the amendment, a duty was placed on all licensees to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the manager complied with his or her obligations (s.115(3)).

[53] The reasoning behind the Amendment was to encourage the drive to raise the standards of those charged with the responsibility of supplying liquor to the public. The expectation was that management of licensed premises would be conducted only by persons of integrity, committed to supervising the sale and supply of liquor, and concerned to give new meaning to the term “host responsibility”. The ultimate aim was to achieve the Act’s objective of reducing the incidence of liquor abuse.

[54] In Noel Justin Allen LLA 1388/97 the Authority made these comments:

“Following the introduction of a competitive regime on 1 April 1990 under the new Act, the Authority allowed a settling in period. In more recent years, we have endeavoured to gently raise the requisite standards both of licensees and the holders of manager’s certificates in order to improve both knowledge of the Sale of Liquor Act, and the conduct of licensed premises. As Dormer, Sherriff, and Crookston “Sale of Liquor” state in their text introduction at para 22 “Licences will be easier to get and easier to lose.” Provisions for manager’s certificates should, in our view, follow a similar pattern.”

[55] In this case, Mr Frith has shown a willingness to abide by the law only where he thinks the law is right. He has displayed a lack of faith in the Police and the Inspector which we found very worrying. In Deejay Enterprises Limited LLA 531/97 – 532/97 the Authority said:

“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 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.”

[56] Not only has Mr Frith failed to conduct the licensed premises in a proper manner, his conduct has been such that we consider he is no longer suitable to hold a certificate. In view of this finding, we believe it is desirable to halve the period of suspension that might otherwise be appropriate for the licensee and for Mrs Scally. The conduct of the premises over the past nine months has been sufficiently serious to make suspension orders inevitable.

[57] For the reasons expressed we make the following orders.

• (a) On-licence number 023/ON/110/2001 issued to Tu Enterprises Limited is suspended for one week from 9.00 am on Monday 19 January 2004.
  
• (b) General Manager’s Certificate number GM 023/115/2000 issued to Teresa Margaret Scally is suspended for two weeks from 9.00 am on Monday 19 January 2004.
  

(c) General Manager’s Certificate number GM/023/108/2000 issued to Ian Neville Frith is cancelled.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 17th day of December 2003

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Lake House Hotel.doc(nl)