Sergent, re [2007] NZLLA 794 (23 August 2007)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Sergent, re [2007] NZLLA 794 (23 August 2007)

Last Updated: 2 February 2010

Decision No.PH 794/2007

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by CHRISTINA VALERIE MOANA SERGENT pursuant to s.123 of the Act for renewal of a General Manager’s Certificate

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge E W Unwin
Member: Mr P M McHaffie

HEARING at Gisborne on 7 August 2007

APPEARANCES

Ms C V M Sergent – applicant
Ms A S Joe – Gisborne District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist
Sergeant C B Neustroski – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] Before the Authority is the application by Christina Valerie Moana Sergent for the renewal of her General Manager's Certificate. Ms Sergent was granted her certificate on 2 December 2005, and this is the first renewal application.

[2] The criteria to which we must have regard are set out in s.126 of the Act. These criteria relate to:

• (a) Ms Sergent's character and reputation;
• (b) Any convictions recorded against her since the certificate was issued;
• (c) The manner in which she has managed the sale and supply of liquor with the aim of contributing to the reduction of liquor abuse; and
• (d) Any matters dealt with any report under s.124 of this Act.
  

[3] The application (not unnaturally), drew an adverse report from the Police based on the fact that on 9 November 2006, Ms Sergent had been apprehended for driving with excessive breath alcohol content. The level on that occasion was 527 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. At the hearing it was also revealed that in April 2007, the offending had been aggravated by the fact that Ms Sergent had been apprehended for driving while disqualified, for which she was subsequently convicted.

[4] There is no adverse comment about the way in which she has managed the sale and supply of liquor over the last 20 months. Her employer, Mr Scott Layton, has seen fit to come before the Authority in support of the application. He described Ms Sergent as being honest, loyal and reliable. He gave us illustrations of the way she has focused on her responsibility. It is quite clear that Ms Sergent herself is keen on the job and takes it seriously. It is her private life that seemed to be something of an issue. She acknowledged that she acted stupidly in incurring the first conviction as well as the second. She stated that she is very serious about what she does.

[5] The difficulty that the Authority faces is that we only have two options. We may either grant the renewal or we may refuse it. In many cases, an application is brought before us for the suspension of the certificate pursuant to s.135 of the Act. There is no question that had such an application been before us, Ms Sergent's certificate would have been suspended for a period. We believe that to refuse the renewal and thereby cancel her manager's certificate (with the potential of her losing her employment) would be an unreasonable response to the offending. On the other hand Ms Sergent's conduct has placed her certificate at risk.

[6] Although we were dealing with a suspension application in the decision of Martin Ferguson v Alistair Robert Lyon LLA PH 57/2003, the comments there are just as pertinent:

"It is our view that if managers are guilty of breaches of the drink driving provisions of the Land Transport Act, they must expect their certificates to be suspended for a period. The length of the period should represent a balance between the seriousness of the offending and the maximum term of six months. In the majority of cases such a result would be seen by the Authority as a desirable step towards the promotion of the object of the Act."

[7] In this case it is clear that Ms Sergent has let herself down and damaged the integrity of the certificate. Our expectations of managers is that they will set an example to their patrons as well as looking after them and ensuring that they are not at risk. Ms Sergent has done one without the other.

[8] The offending is aggravated by the fact that the drink driving charge occurred within the first probationary year. However, as stated earlier we do not intend to refuse the application because of the potential consequences for the applicant. We will renew the certificate but it will be for a limited period. We need to bring to Ms Sergent's attention (as well as holders of other managers’ certificates) that if they become involved with liquor abuse issues, then their certificates will be at risk. If the conduct is repeated or is serious certificates will be cancelled.

[9] In this case, Ms Sergent's certificate is renewed for a period of 18 months. This means that it will fall due again for renewal on 2 June 2008, in less than 12 months time.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 23RD day of August 2007

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Christina Sergent