Gregory, re [2006] NZLLA 52 (16 February 2006)

Last Updated: 17 February 2010

Decision No. PH 52/2006

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by CLAIRE MICHELLE GREGORY 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 20 January 2006

APPEARANCES

No appearance by or on behalf of applicant
Mr R F Burgess - Tauranga District Licensing Agency Inspector - in opposition
Sergeant D J Thompson - NZ Police - in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE DECISION

[1] Before the Authority is an application by Claire Michelle Gregory for a General Manager’s Certificate. Ms Gregory is relatively mature, and has held a General Manager’s Certificate in the past. The current application results from her allowing the previous certificate to lapse.

[2] The application drew adverse reports both from the Police and the District Licensing Agency Inspector. The basis of the concern was a conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol arising from an incident on 26 June 2004. The level of alcohol in Ms Gregory breath was 1,024 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. Ms Gregory was subsequently convicted in the Tauranga District Court and fined and disqualified.

[3] It could be argued that a period of two years suggested in the Authority’s previous decision of G L Osborne LLA 2388/95 may be due to expire this year. However the evidence received by the Authority at the hearing has disclosed a much more recent conviction involving the use or abuse of drugs.

[4] On 25 July 2005, Ms Gregory was convicted in the Tauranga District Court on a charge of possessing utensils involving the potential abuse of methamphetamine, and was fined $300 and ordered to pay Court costs of $130. That is a recent conviction, and clearly shows a disposition for criminal offending which is totally inimical to any suggested suitability to hold a General Manager’s Certificate.

[5] The final matter is that Ms Gregory has failed to appear to support her application, no doubt with the realisation that the more recent conviction would in fact result in the likely refusal of the application at any event.

[6] In the circumstances the application must be refused. At the same time we refer to the decision of D T Hayford v the Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector (High Court) AP 201/92 in which Justice Holland stated:

“A finding should not be infinite. It may well be that he should be given another chance that will be for the Tribunal having the authority of deciding whether or not a new licence is to be granted. I would not want it to be said that because this Court has said he is a person unsuitable to carry on a licence that should permanently be regarded as the situation”.

[7] On the other hand if Ms Gregory were to reapply, either the Agency or the Authority would have to be well assured that there was no continuing involvement with the use or abuse either or liquor or drugs.

[8] The application is refused.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 16th day of February 2006

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Claire Gregory.doc(aw)