Carroll, re [2004] NZLLA 43 (2 February 2004)

Last Updated: 17 February 2010

Decision No. PH 043/2004

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by JASON FRANCIS CARROLL 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 22 January 2004

APPEARANCES

Mr J F Carroll – applicant
Mr R S Putze – Wellington District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist
Sergeant G D Verner – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] Before the Authority is an application by Jason Francis Carroll for a General Manager's Certificate.
[2] Mr Carroll fulfils a number of the criteria which are set out in s.121 of the Act, although in other respects the application has some serious flaws. The positive aspects of the application are that Mr Carroll has a reasonably extensive involvement with the hospitality industry. He worked at the “Bus Stop Tavern and Bar” for well over 12 months. During that time he was employed as a temporary manager. He worked for a number of years at the Petone Tenpin Bowling Complex, and over the last three months he has been employed by the “Office Bar” in Newtown. Regrettably, the employer of the “Office Bar” is not present, and there is no supporting reference. Mr Carroll assures us that the application is welcomed by his current employer.
[3] Mr Carroll has completed a course of training with D A Richards & Associates, and he was able to satisfy the District Licensing Agency Inspector that he had a reasonable knowledge of the responsibilities which go with the holding of a General Manager's Certificate.
[4] The Police oppose the application, and as a consequence it was set down for a public hearing. The grounds for the opposition were twofold. Firstly, when he completed his application Mr Carroll was asked whether he had previous convictions. When asked to list them he wrote that he had been convicted of drink/driving some 18 months previously, and lost his licence for six months.
[5] It turns out that Mr Carroll has a relatively extensive list of offending, although to be fair to him, some of that offending occurred when he was very young. He stated that he thought that there was not much space to put in all the convictions. He also considered that as they happened some considerable time ago, they might therefore have less relevance.
[6] Mr Carroll first became involved in anti-social activity in 1989, some 15 years ago. He incurred a number of convictions involving dishonesty in the Youth Court, and then appeared in the District Court in 1990 through to 1994. During that time there was a conviction for possession of cannabis.
[7] The more relevant offending occurred in 1998 when Mr Carroll was convicted of driving with an excessive breath alcohol content. The level was 611 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.
[8] In 2001 there was a second conviction for similar offending. On that occasion the level was 637 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.
[9] Finally, on 30 September last, Mr Carroll was convicted for possession of cannabis. This was his second offence. He was fined $250. According to the summary of facts he was found at 3.10 am in the central city of Wellington. He had three small plastic bags with him containing approximately 5 grams of cannabis which he had purchased from different sources. There had been a group found smoking cannabis, and it was when he was interviewed, that Mr Carroll produced the cannabis. At that time he said that he normally smoked cannabis about once a week and that it was for his own use.
[10] In giving evidence, Mr Carroll said that he acknowledged that people did silly things when they were young, and that he had done so and was trying to move on. He said that he was not a regular user of cannabis. He said that when he was working, he had been subjected to a couple of robberies and had some difficulty in getting over that particular trauma, and may have used cannabis to assist him to do so. He had not had any follow up counselling or treatment in respect of either a cannabis or liquor involvement.
[11] The case of G L Osborne, LLA 2388/95 set out a number of guidelines which we have used from time to time. In that case it was said that if there was serious offending, a period of five years should elapse so that a person could show that he is conviction free. In this case, Mr Carroll does have a good history of involvement with the hospitality industry, and he has no convictions under the Sale of Liquor Act.
[12] The Authority is concerned about his involvement with cannabis and/or alcohol. We accept that he does not drink while he is working, and he does not perceive himself as having any great problem. In doing the best we can, we would have suggested a period of two years should elapse from the date of the last conviction. This would take any application through to September 2005. We suggest that Mr Carroll should wait out that time, and make a fresh application. If at that time he has the support of his employer, then the probability is that provided there have been no other convictions, the application could be looked at more positively. If Mr Carroll was able to confirm that he had had no involvement with cannabis, and that there was no underlying drinking problem, then the grant of such an application could almost be guaranteed.
[13] Those are the matters facing Mr Carroll. We point out that there is a link between licensed premises and the consumption of drugs. This is unfortunately a fact of life. The Authority has said in the past that it is loath to grant certificates to managers of licensed premises if there is any drug involvement.
[14] The application must be declined today. Mr Carroll is welcome to reapply after two years from the last conviction.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 2nd day of February 2004

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

jfcarroll.doc(aw)