Ace, re [2005] NZLLA 236 (22 April 2005)

Last Updated: 3 March 2010

Decision No. PH 236/2005

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by JAMES LEONARD ACE 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 TAURANGA on 14 April 2005

APPEARANCES

Mr J L Ace - applicant
Sergeant D J Thompson - NZ Police - in opposition
Ms D L Daubney - Tauranga District Licensing Agency Inspector - to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by James Leonard Ace for a General Manager’s Certificate. In considering the application, we are required to take into account the criteria listed in s.121 of the Act. In this case the relevant criteria relate to Mr Ace’s character and reputation and s.121(1)(c) which reads:

(c) Any experience, in particular recent experience, that the applicant has had in managing any premises or conveyance in respect of which a licence was in force:

[2] Mr Ace presents well, and has the advantage of being supported at the hearing by his employer. Mr Ace has been employed at the “Lone Star” licensed premises in Tauranga and Hamilton since February 2004. During that time he has worked his way to a stage where his employer Mr Armstrong takes the view that he is good at his job, and is mature beyond his years. Mr Ace is just 21 years of age and is being considered for a trainee manager role within the system.

[3] The application drew an adverse report from the Police based on the fact that on 4 April 2004, Mr Ace was charged with the theft of a can of Red Bull drink from a dairy, and also for resisting arrest. The summary of facts does not make particularly good reading. The incident occurred at 3.30 am, and involved Mr Ace walking out of a dairy having consumed half a can of Red Bull and then concealing the can as he walked out.

[4] He was arrested by the Police, and according to the summary of facts, he suddenly struck the Constable in the face with his elbow. He says that the incident occurred while he was struggling with the Constable. There is no question that there was some violence involved, and a member of the public assisted the Constable to subdue Mr Ace. Eventually Mr Ace calmed down and acknowledged that it was a stupid thing to do.

[5] He was offered diversion, and this was duly completed by the writing of an apology and the making of a donation. Nevertheless the incident did happen, and it affects and compromises Mr Ace’s character and reputation.

[6] The other matter of concern is Mr Ace’s age, and the fact that he has no experience in managing any licensed premises. He has been well trained and has been working alongside experience managers. In the course of time, he will go through the trainee management system which is operated by the “Lone Star” franchise. It is clear that Mr Ace has a potentially good career ahead of him in the industry.

[7] It is not our intention to prevent him in furthering his career notwithstanding his lack of experience, and the incident (which is sadly common to many young 21-year old males). Had a conviction been recorded in April 2004, then we would normally have asked an applicant to wait for two years and to be conviction free during that period, to show that they have learned the error of their ways, and that the incident is isolated.

[8] In this case, there has been no conviction recorded. Nevertheless we think it is a little soon to grant the application at this time. What we propose is that the application will be adjourned for nine months. During that time, we hope that Mr Ace will be able to complete the trainee manager course. We also anticipate that he may be appointed as a temporary manager by his employer provided the provisions of s.128 of the Act are complied with. At the end of nine months we will expect a further report from the Police and District Licensing Agency Inspector. If there are no untoward incidents then we propose to grant the application on the papers. If on the other hand there are some further serious reservations, a further public hearing may be necessary.

[9] In summary, the Authority’s decision is not to refuse the application, but to adjourn it for nine months.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 22nd day of April 2005

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

James Ace.doc(aw)