Royal, re [2004] NZLLA 618 (6 September 2004)

Last Updated: 24 November 2010

Decision No. PH 618/2004

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by RYAN NGAIWI ROYAL 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 HAMILTON on 23 August 2004

APPEARANCES

Mr R N Royal - applicant
Mr T P Van Der Heijden - Hamilton District Licensing Agency Inspector - to assist
Sergeant S A Inness - NZ Police - in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Ryan Ngaiwi Royal for a General Manager’s Certificate. The criteria to be considered by the Authority are set out in s.121 of the Act. Mr Royal fulfils quite a number of the criteria. He comes before the Authority having worked for a considerable period in the hospitality industry. More recently he has worked at licensed premises in Hamilton known as “Armadillo’s Street Bar and Grill”. Mr Royal started working there in October 2003, and has produced a reference for the period of time that he worked until June 2004. There was then a period of some six weeks or so, when he ran the business on his own as a temporary manager. The business was acquired by a Mr McKim in July 2004. He also has reported on Mr Royal’s suitability, and in particular his ability to deal with intoxicated customers.

[2] Mr Royal has completed a course of training with Liquor Licensing Bureau Limited and a submission has been supplied by Mr Ross Murphy in support of the application.

[3] The reason that this case has come before the Authority concerns convictions incurred by Mr Royal involving liquor abuse and/or potential liquor abuse. The first conviction resulted from Mr Royal being apprehended at 4.10 am on 29 November 2002. Mr Royal said that he was rung by friends having gone to bed, and was stopped as part of a mobile breath testing operation, and found to have a breath alcohol level of 681 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. That was a first conviction for Mr Royal.

[4] He aggravated the situation when on 18 January 2004, he was found again in Hamilton at about 1 am. According to the summary of facts, he was seen consuming alcohol on Victoria Street in Hamilton. Mr Royal has stated that he had a bottle of beer with him which had not been opened. He accepted that he had been drinking beforehand. He took the view that although both offences involved liquor use, he is very well aware having been appointed as an assistant manager, of the need to set an example to his customers and in particular ensure their safety.

[5] The Police quite properly have pointed out that the charges involve liquor abuse, and that a conviction free period of at least two years should be maintained. The Police took the view that the charge of driving with excess was the more important of the two charges. It is acknowledged by the Sergeant that to some extent the application has been overtaken by time in that it was filed in March of this year, and it is now almost two years since the offending took place.

[6] The Authority is governed to a large extent by s.4 of the Act which sets out the object of the Act. Pursuant to s.4(2) of the Act, the Authority is required to exercise its jurisdiction. powers and discretions under the Act in a manner that is most likely to promote the object of the Act. Although the two-year conviction free period of time has nearly expired, and bearing in mind the very supportive references which have been made available, we do not see anything exceptional in this particular application. We accept the recommendation of the Police that a period of two years should expire from the date of offending. This will enable Mr Royal to show that he has learnt any lesson involving the use and/or abuse of liquor, and is more likely to set an example to his patrons, and ensure that the premises which he manages, do not break the law.

[7] Accordingly we propose to adjourn these proceedings for six months. This will take the period of time through to early next year, and past the two-year conviction free period which was suggested not only by the Police, but in the decision of G L Osborne LLA 2388/95. If after six months there has been no other record of offending or any other adverse incident involving Mr Royal, we propose to grant the application on the papers. On the other hand if there are still concerns from the Police or District Licensing Agency Inspector, a further public hearing may be called for.

[8] The application is adjourned accordingly.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 6th day of September 2004

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Royal.doc(nl)