Ormond, re [2006] NZLLA 288 (19 April 2006)

Last Updated: 14 March 2010

Decision No. PH 288/2006

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by JAMES DUNCAN ORMOND 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 AUCKLAND on 4 April 2006

APPEARANCES

Mr J D Ormond – applicant
Mr D W Sara – Auckland District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Mr R G Poole – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by James Duncan Ormond for a General Manager’s Certificate. Mr Ormond is a full-time student, but he has supplemented his vocation with a number of jobs in the hospitality industry.

[2] More importantly, some 12 months ago he began working for the “Reef Café” in Symonds Street, Auckland. There, he is regarded as an exceptional barman, and a trustworthy and conscientious employee. The managing director of the business has written a reference to indicate that they wish Mr Ormond to have a General Managers Certificate so that he can be responsible for running the café in the absence of the proprietor.

[3] Mr Ormond has completed a course of training with Hospitality Management Consultants Limited, and is also currently the holder of the Licence Controller Qualification. Although Mr Ormond has not been interviewed he displayed a good knowledge of the Act when he gave evidence. In most respects he qualifies to hold a General Manager’s Certificate. He has also produced three further references as to his character.

[4] One of the issues to which the Authority must have regard is the previous convictions incurred by an applicant. In this case the evidence is that Mr Ormond has two relevant convictions although one does not involve liquor abuse. He was first apprehended on 22 May 2004 for drink/driving. The level is not known but is believed to be moderate. Mr Ormond was duly convicted and disqualified. Shortly thereafter Mr Ormond drove a motor vehicle against the disqualification order. This occurred on 13 January 2005, just over 12 months ago.

[5] The Police have suggested that an adjournment might be appropriate so that a period of two years could elapse from the date of the last offending. There are a number of guidelines relating to how previous convictions should be dealt with. In this case the application is for a full General Manager’s Certificate. Mr Ormond has indicated that if he is granted the certificate it will be a useful opportunity for him to obtain other work in the hospitality industry that may suit his student hours.

[6] In the decision of Graham Leslie Osborne 2388/95 it was stated:

“Without fettering ourselves in this or other applications, it may be helpful if we indicate that we commonly look for a five year period free of any serious conviction or any conviction relating to or involving the abuse of alcohol or arising in the course of an applicant’s duty on licensed premises.”

[7] On the other hand, the Authority, as it was then constituted, suggested that other convictions should be weighed in the balance including for example an isolated breath or blood alcohol conviction. The Authority indicated that if there was isolated offending, a period of two years from the date of conviction might result in subsequent favourable consideration. Since then we have taken the view that the time during which a person could show that he or she has learnt from what has happened in the past, and is able to assume the responsibility of holding a General Manager’s Certificate should run from the date of offending.

[8] In this case we are of the view that the grant of this application is a process rather than an event. While not condoning a charge of driving while disqualified as it is a breach of a Court order, it does not involve liquor abuse. We would like for Mr Ormond to have the advantage of being a temporary manager from time to time provided the provisions of s.128 of the Act have been complied with. In all the circumstances a period of less than two years from the last offence in our view is appropriate.

[9] We propose to adjourn the application for a period of six months. At the end of that period if there are no other adverse comments or no other incidents, we propose to grant the application on the papers. If other matters are raised a further public hearing may be necessary.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 19th day of April 2006

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

ormond.doc (md)