Brooking, re [2005] NZLLA 259 (3 May 2005)

Last Updated: 7 March 2010

Decision No. PH 259/2005

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by MATTHEW JOSEPH BROOKING 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 26 April 2005

APPEARANCES

Mr M J Brooking - applicant
Mr R S Putze - Wellington District Licensing Agency Inspector - in opposition
Sergeant G D Verner - NZ Police - in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Matthew Joseph Brooking for a General Manager’s Certificate. To some extent the application has been overtaken by time. When he made his application back in June 2004, Mr Brooking had been working for approximately four years at “Pak n’ Save” in Kilbirnie. At that time, he had supportive references from that organisation, as well as a certificate of achievement from Brett Jones and Associates Limited in Units 4646 and 16705.

[2] However, adverse reports were received. The first was from the District Licensing Agency Inspector. He referred to the fact that Mr Brooking had sat a test to check his knowledge of the Act and his responsibilities as the potential holder of a General Manager’s Certificate. Mr Brooking had gained a mark of 17, which is just one under the pass rate which is set at 80%. He subsequently carried out two further interviews in July and August 2004, but his marks became progressively worse. Mr Brooking was apparently unable to retain the knowledge that he had obtained from completing the course with Brett Jones and Associates Limited.

[3] The other issue related to the Police concerns involving an allegation of disorderly behaviour. That matter has apparently been resolved. When he gave evidence, Mr Brooking acknowledged that since that time there had been an incident in March 2005, resulting in two convictions in the same month. These convictions were for assault and threatening behaviour under the Summary Offences Act. The facts disclosed that Mr Brooking was intoxicated shortly after midnight on 4 March this year. There was an incident when he became a passenger in a taxi, and refused to pay the fare, and then threatened the taxi driver. Mr Brooking was convicted in the District Court in Wellington, and was fined a total of $200 in respect of the assault charge which consisted of him holding onto the arm of the taxi driver, and a further $100 in respect of the threatening behaviour. The addition of Court costs would have made it an expensive exercise for Mr Brooking.

[4] Mr Brooking also advised that some four or five weeks ago he began working for a different supermarket. There is no supporting reference from that supermarket at this time, and therefore he is not able to demonstrate that the particular employer is supportive of the application for a General Manager’s Certificate.

[5] As the Sergeant correctly pointed out we are governed to some extent by previous decisions. The most important decision in that regard is the case of G L Osborne LLA 2388/95 it which the Authority indicated a minimum of two years from a date of conviction must result in subsequent favourable consideration, particularly when the incidents involve liquor abuse. This period of time is recommended so that an applicant can show that he or she has learnt from the error of their ways. It is now clear that Mr Brooking has appreciated that he was having difficulties with the over consumption of alcohol. He said that this was a phase which he has got through, and since then, he has cut his liquor consumption down considerably. Time will tell.

[6] If Mr Brooking has the support of his employer, and is either able to complete a further course of training, or study the Act and answer the Inspector’s questions in a satisfactory way, then he could make an application in 12 months time. This would be on the basis that he is able to give an undertaking that he would only use his certificate working for his current employer, or in an off-licence. It may be that following the filing of the application, a further period of time would be required for Mr Brooking to show that he is “out of the woods” so to speak.

[7] The application will be declined, but the finding should not be regarded as infinite. Mr Brooking is welcome to make a further application in the course of time when he has the committed support of his employer, and is able to demonstrate a good knowledge of the Act.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 3rd day of May 2005

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Brooking.doc(nl)