Nordstrand [2006] NZLLA 832 (4 October 2006)

Last Updated: 23 January 2012

Decision No. PH 832/2006

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by DESMOND GEORGE NORDSTRAND pursuant to s.118 of the Act for a Club Manager’s Certificate

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge E W Unwin
Member: Ms P A Ballard

HEARING at WHANGAREI on 26 September 2006

APPEARANCES

Mr D G Nordstrand – applicant
Sergeant H P Clement – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] Before the Authority is an application by Desmond George Nordstrand for a Club Manager’s Certificate.

[2] The application has the full support of the “Northpower Social Club”. Judging by the file this is a well organised club which provides social amenities to the employees of a relatively large business. The club normally operates on a Friday evening between 4.00 pm and 8.00 pm. There are other persons who help to manage the premises for a reasonable recompense.

[3] According to the papers Mr Nordstrand has been helping with the running of this social club for about four years. He was encouraged by the club to apply for a Club Manager’s Certificate. The bar manager wrote that Mr Nordstrand related well to his customers and provided a good service. He was impressive when he gave evidence before the Authority particularly about his role as a potential holder of a Club Manager’s Certificate. We received a second reference given by other members of the club which indicates that Mr Nordstrand is regarded as punctual, honest and reliable.

[4] When he made his application Mr Nordstrand stated that he used up the two spaces available in his application form to show that he had been convicted of drunk driving in 1993 and assault in 1992. The Police did their normal check and discovered that Mr Nordstrand had had a large amount of previous convictions notably between 1983 and 2003, over a period of some 20 years.

[5] The first objection therefore was on the basis that Mr Nordstrand had failed to disclose all his convictions indicating dishonesty. Mr Nordstrand has stated that:

• [a] There was little space in this to write all his convictions and he has at least 35 of them.
  
• [b] That he knew that the issue would be checked at any event by the Police, so that he put in what he could remember.
  

[6] That may well be the case. In other words, we are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on that particular matter. It has not been established that he deliberately set out to mislead either the Agency or the Police or indeed the Authority.

[7] The second issue relates to the convictions themselves. There are for example five convictions between 1984 and 1996 involving breaches of the drink driving provisions of the Land Transport Act. The last of these convictions was in 1996 some 10 years ago.

[8] One of the issues for us is whether Mr Nordstrand has a problem with liquor abuse. He has acknowledged that there were such problems but he has been alcohol and drug free for some two and a half years. His evidence was that he had received counselling for liquor abuse and he is now abstinent. He is not the first person to have taken this course of action and still work in the industry where of course there are temptations. In a way such a person may be in a better position to judge the intoxication levels of his or her patrons, and the potential harm if their drinking is uncontrolled.

[9] The last offending was in January 2003. As the Sergeant has pointed out this is just three and a half years ago. This was a charge of assault with an instrument. Mr Nordstrand states that he pleaded guilty. He contended that he made a threat but did not connect. He was fined $350 which would indicate that what he has said is correct.

[10] He has a previous matter, which is just coming up to five years ago, for male assaults female. Mr Nordstrand says that he has done counselling for anger management as well. He says that he is now a family man with children. He is very keen to put the past behind him and move forward. He believes he is a better person than he was back then. Certainly he has the support of his employers.

[11] The question of course is whether the rules that we would normally apply might be relaxed in this case. This is an application for a Club Manager’s Certificate and there is a distinction in terms of management requirements. It is generally felt that where members of the public are not being served with liquor, then there will be less disciplinary problems. The argument is that the rules of the club will ensure that members behave.

[12] In this case there are two matters that concern us in terms of the application. Normally speaking we would have suggested that a five-year conviction-free period from the date of the last offending would have been an appropriate period to show suitability. On that basis the application would be declined.

[13] The two matters that affect our decision are:

• [a] That in August 2005 Mr Nordstrand was appointed as a temporary manager. He has been working from time to time ever since, running the social club on his own, and supervising some of the activities. He has been given an opportunity to show his responsibility which he has taken advantage of. There have been no adverse consequences.
  
• [b] The second issue is that he has given an undertaking that if he is granted his application at this time, then the certificate itself will only be used in working for the “Northpower Social Club”. Mr Nordstrand has accepted that he would not be able to use his certificate in any other place of employment unless permission was to be given by a District Licensing Agency Inspector or this Authority.
  

[14] As the Police have stated, the “Northpower Social Club” in Whangarei operates well. We believe that if Mr Nordstrand was given an opportunity to accept greater responsibility, that he would not abuse it. He works for the company on a full time basis and has the responsibility for supervising others as well.

[15] As stated above, we would regard five conviction free years as the normal appropriate stand down period. In these special circumstances, we are prepared to give Mr Nordstrand two opportunities which could be regarded as ‘probationary’ experience.

[16] The first ‘probationary’ test will be over the next 12 months. We grant an adjournment of the application for that period of time. We trust that during that period of time Mr Nordstrand can continue as a temporary manager. We expect that to happen. He can continue to manage the premises on his own provided the provisions of s. 128 of the Act have been met. This is an opportunity to establish that he has learned from the past and the mistakes of the past are unlikely to be repeated.

[17] After 12 months if there are no further adverse matters we propose to grant the application on the papers. Any such grant will be for a further period of one year.

[18] The application is adjourned on those terms.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 4th day of October 2006

Judge E W Unwin Ms P A Ballard
Chairman Member

Desmond Nordstrand.doc(aw)