Verner v Maisuria [2006] NZLLA 327 (19 May 2006)

Last Updated: 19 March 2010

Decision No. PH 327-328/2006

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of applications pursuant to s.135 of the Act for suspension of General Manager’s Certificate number 049/GM/368/2005 issued to GEETABEN RAJUBHAI MAISURIA; and General Manager’s Certificate number 049/GM/385/2005 issued to RAJUBHAI BABULAL MAISURIA

BETWEEN GRANT DAVID VERNER

(Police Officer of Wellington)

Applicant

AND GEETABEN RAJUBHAI MAISURIA

First respondent

AND RAJUBHAI BABULAL MAISURIA

Second respondent

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge E W Unwin
Member: Mr J C Crookston

DECISION

We have before us applications by Senior Sergeant G D Verner of Wellington Police for suspension of the General Managers’ Certificates held by Geetaben Rajubhai Maisuria and her husband Rajubhai Babulal Maisuria.

The grounds for the application are that each of the managers has failed to conduct the premises in a proper manner.

Mr and Mrs Maisuria, through their company Tree Top Lane Limited, were operating premises at 2 Khandallah Road, Ngaio, Wellington, known as “Colway Store”, under temporary authority. An off-licence has recently been issued to the company.

During a controlled purchase operation conducted jointly by the Police and Wellington District Licensing Agency last December, the business was tested for compliance with the Act.

Mr and Mrs Maisuria’s names were jointly displayed in the premises as being the managers on duty. The Police summary of facts in relation to the subsequent sequence of events is disturbing.

More particularly it is alleged that on Friday 2 December last, a female volunteer aged 16 years, was requested by the Police, pursuant to s.162(5) of the Act, to enter the “Colway Store” and attempt to purchase liquor. Mr Maisuria asked the volunteer whether she had any document of identification by which he would be able to establish her age. Although no such document was able to be provided, the sale of liquor was completed, and the volunteer left the premises with her purchase and returned to the Police vehicle from which she had received her instructions.

While the “Volunteer Controlled Purchase Notes” form was being completed the Police officer observed a young male exit the “Colway Store” with bags appearing to contain liquor. When the officer spoke to this person it was ascertained that he was 16 years of age, and that he had purchased a quantity of liquor, sold to him by Mr Maisuria, without being required to produce any identification, and without being asked his age.

When the Police officer and Agency Inspector interviewed Mr Maisuria, he admitted making the sale to the volunteer and to the 16 year-old male.

While Mr Maisuria was being questioned as to why he had made the unlawful sales, Mrs Maisuria proceeded to sell liquor to a male customer who appeared to the Police officer to be under the lawful age to purchase it.

When challenged by the Police officer, the customer first produced a driving licence which, from the photograph, clearly was not his, but showed the holder to be almost 19 years of age. The officer asked the young person if he had a driver’s licence of his own. This was subsequently produced and revealed his true age to be 16 years and one month.

Mrs Maisuria could give no explanation as to why she had made a sale to someone who looked so unlike the photograph on the driver’s licence that had been proffered to facilitate the purchase.

We have no hesitation in repeating our frequently stated observation that we consider any sale of liquor to minors as serious. This view is clearly shared by the legislature, which amended the offences provisions of the Act in 1999 to demonstrate that significant penalties await licensees and managers who fail to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities in relation to the sale of liquor to prohibited persons.

We are satisfied that the grounds for these applications have been established, and they are not disputed by the respondents.

Mr and Mrs Maisuria can consider themselves fortunate that the Police did not lodge information before the Courts under the offences provisions of the Act. As it is, Sergeant Verner has taken the initiative by inquiring of the respondents whether they acknowledge that in any proceedings before the Authority, suspension of the licences and managers’ certificates is a virtual inevitability.

He has further recommended that they may wish to consider acceptance by consent, of periods of suspension being imposed by the Authority, without the requirement to attend a public hearing before us to determine the matters.

The respondents have expressed a wish to follow that course of action, and the applicant has recommended penalties which are considered to be commensurate with the scale of the offending in each instance.

Accordingly, having considered the recommendations from the Police, we deal with the matters on the papers, and we make the following orders:

(a) General Manager’s Certificate number 049/GM/368/2005, issued to Geetaben Rajubhai Maisuria, is suspended for one month from Monday 29 May 2006.

(b) General Manager’s Certificate number 049/GM/385/2005, issued to Rajubhai Babulal Maisuria, is suspended for two months from Friday 30 June 2006.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 19th day of May 2006

______________________
B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Maisuria.doc(ab)