Aitchison, re [2004] NZLLA 56 (9 February 2004)

Last Updated: 17 February 2010

Decision No. PH 056/2004

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by ALEXANDER NORTON AITCHISON 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 23 January 2004

APPEARANCES

Mr A N Aitchison – 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 Alexander Norton Aitchison for a General Manager's Certificate.
[2] Mr Aitchison is a relatively mature 41 year old. He has had previous experience in the hospitality industry working at a licensed restaurant in Petone for two years. For the last twelve months Mr Aitchison has been employed at the “Blow Bar”. He has effectively been the manager of that bar, and has carried out the responsibilities of management since he made his application in February 2003.
[3] Mr Aitchison completed a course of training with Hospitality Training Company. Mr Aitchison has produced work references, although Miss Dianne Sampson, a director of the licence holding company has seen fit to come before the Authority to offer her support to the application. It was her view that Mr Aitchison does not drink to excess, and is very good with the staff. In her opinion, he carries the responsibility for managing a number of members of the staff with ease. She believes that Mr Aitchisonn handles himself well and shows no signs of any temper.
[4] Over the years there has been a constant push to raise the standards of managers, particularly since the Act was amended, to give the full responsibility for the running of licensed premises to the holder of a General Manager's Certificate.
[5] It is as a consequence of the raising of such standards, that the Police have brought to the Authority’s attention, the fact that Mr Aitchison has certain convictions relating to violence.
[6] The first conviction was in 1992. The charge was injuring with intent to injure, and Mr Aitchison was sentenced to imprisonment for six months and ordered to pay a fine and reparation.
[7] Some six years later on 19 September 1998, Mr Aitchison was in Christchurch with a soccer team. There was an incident which resulted in his being convicted for Crimes Act common assault, and male assaults female. Mr Aitchison was sentenced to non-residential periodic detention for three months. The conviction was recorded in September 1999, approximately 14 months after the incident.
[8] The issue before the Authority is a balancing exercise. On the one hand Mr Aitchison is a person who has the full support of a good employer. He has excellent experience and qualifications. When interviewed by the District Licensing Agency Inspector he showed a good knowledge of the Act. On the other hand, there has been a pattern of offending with the propensity for violence.
[9] However, Mr Aitchison gave evidence that he completed an anger management course of some six to eight weeks on his own volition following the latest incident. He found the course very helpful, and he has used the lessons from time to time to defuse potentially explosive situations in the bar. That ability has been confirmed by his employer. In his submissions. the Sergeant, referred to the case of G L Osborne LLA 2388/95 in which the Authority stated that it commonly looked for a five year period free of any serious conviction or any conviction relating to the abuse of alcohol. We note that it is now five years since the incident occurred, although not necessarily five years since the conviction.
[10] It is our view that the positive aspects of the application outweigh the negative ones, and that Mr Aitchison should be given the opportunity to move on. He submitted a further reference indicating that he is currently completing a diploma as an exercise science student at Massey University in Wellington.
[11] In all the circumstances, the Authority’s decision is that the application should be granted.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 9th day of February 2004

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

anaitchison.doc(aw)