Bowles [2007] NZLLA 1119 (29 October 2007)

Last Updated: 28 January 2012

Decision No. PH 1119/2007

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by CAROLYN MARINA BOWLES 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 P M McHaffie

HEARING at WELLINGTON on 16 October 2007

APPEARANCES

Ms C M Bowles – applicant
Sergeant C A Marner – NZ Police – in opposition
Mr R S Putze – Wellington District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] Before the Authority is an application by Carolyn Marina Bowles for a General Manager's Certificate.

[2] Ms Bowles has previously held a certificate. She first appeared before the Authority in December 2004 when her application was opposed. (See LLA PH 917/2004).

[3] At that time there were concerns about her suitability based on a very large number of previous convictions between 1987 and 2001. The largest quantity of convictions was for obtaining money by fraud. It was accepted that the last fraud conviction was in 1994. There was a subsequent conviction of arson in 1996 resulting in a sentence of imprisonment.

[4] The serious offending had stopped for a little under 10 years. Ms Bowles had been free of involvement of serious crime. However there was a drink driving offence in March 2001. This was an isolated offence but it was sufficiently serious for the Authority to decide to adjourn the matter to see whether or not the offending in 2001 was final or not. There were no other issues and Ms Bowles was finally granted her certificate on 27 October 2005.

[5] Ms Bowles neglected to renew her certificate and was required to file a further application. This document was received by the District Licensing Agency in June 2007.

[6] Ms Bowles was interviewed by the Inspector and was found to have a good knowledge of her responsibilities under the Act. Ms Bowles has been working at licensed premises known as the "Kensington" for a considerable period of time. The primary business of the "Kensington" is that of a brothel. Ms Bowles is the holder of the Licence Controller Qualification.

[7] The application drew a further adverse report from the Police. The Police were concerned not so much by the long list of historical previous convictions, but the fact that a recent search warrant executed on the property occupied and owned by Ms Bowles had revealed a number of drugs.

[8] The evidence shows that a search warrant was issued on 4 April 2006. The information leading to the search warrant was that Ms Bowles had been supplying methamphetamine to the girls at the brothel. This allegation was strenuously denied by the owner of the brothel, who was present at the hearing. At any event a search warrant was executed round about 7.00 am on 10 April 2006. The address was in Crofton Downs, a property owned and occupied by the applicant.

[9] The search resulted in the finding of methamphetamine. Most of the methamphetamine was found in the bedroom occupied by Ms Bowles and her partner Lisa Pederson. There are two bedside cabinets on either side of the bed. On the left hand bedside cabinet was found a black cloth sunglass case. In that case were found several bags of methamphetamine and a small measuring spoon. Inside the other cabinet was found a few small plastic bags that also contained methamphetamine.

[10] Ms Bowles was questioned. She acknowledged that there was not necessarily one side or the other that people slept on. However, she accepted that the left-hand cabinet was her own. She said that the black sunglass case was not hers, and that she was unaware of it. She denied any involvement with methamphetamine and said that she had no idea whether her partner Lisa was in possession of the substance.

[11] At some stage during the interview process the Constable was spoken to by a second Constable who was interviewing Ms Pederson. Ms Pederson had acknowledged that the drugs were hers. Ms Pederson told the interviewing Constable that Ms Bowles had hidden the sunglass case, at her request, under the bedside cabinet where it was found. This new factual allegation was put to Ms Bowles but she declined to answer the question.

[12] Other drugs were found on the property, but it was acknowledged that these drugs were in the possession of Ms Bowles' brother and his partner. They were sleeping in another part of the house.

[13] All the occupants were charged with the possession of drugs. Ms Bowles and Ms Pederson were jointly charged with possession of methamphetamine for supply. The case was due to be heard by way of depositions on 11 October 2006. On that date Ms Pederson pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to a month's imprisonment. The charges against Ms Bowles were withdrawn.

[14] Ms Bowles, (as is her right), declined to give evidence. She made a statement in which she said she had sold her property to downsize as well as prevent other people making use of her property. In particular she referred to her brother and his friends.

[15] Mr Montgomery was present. He is the owner of the institution known as the "Kensington". He was here to support Ms Bowles. He stated that she is an important part of the team and is still involved in a managerial capacity.

[16] The issue under s.121 of the Act is the character and reputation of the applicant. In other words the primary focus is on Ms Bowles' suitability. There are always concerns when persons have a long list of previous convictions, and in this case there are no less than 96 such matters. In a situation like that, the concern is whether people may revert back to type.

[17] Ms Bowles has not been convicted. The question is whether the circumstances of the offending which led to her arrest, and led to the conviction of her partner, implicated her, at a time when she must well be aware that in order to retain the confidence of the Authority or indeed the Agency, she is expected to lead a pro-social and squeaky clean lifestyle.

[18] Having heard the evidence we are satisfied that Ms Bowles was involved with the hiding of the sunglass case. We are satisfied on the probabilities that she must have known of the drug activity that was going on in her house. If a person has a list of convictions of the serious nature that are present in this case, and if that person becomes involved in more anti-social activity of a serious nature such as this, then, despite the fact that she is not the main offender, we believe that her character and reputation have once again been undermined.

[19] The issue for us is all about keeping standards high in the industry. Parliament has reposed in duty managers the full responsibility of maintaining law and order in the premises that they manage. Those are the people that we have complete trust in to ensure that the law is respected, and the premises managed properly, and the Act is not breached.

[20] We regret to say that because of the incident that occurred as a result of the search warrant in April last year, we no longer have that confidence in the character and reputation of this applicant. Therefore the application will be refused.

[21] We wish to record that a finding of this nature is not infinite. If a person has been found to be unsuitable to be the holder of a General Manager's Certificate, then it is up to that person to be able to show that they have changed or learned from the experiences of the past. At some later stage they are entitled to make a further application if they can show that they have finally turned the corner. In such a case it is not impossible for that person to be granted a certificate.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 29th day of October 2007

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Carolyn Bowles.doc(aw)