Murphy, re [2008] NZLLA 1311 (8 September 2008)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Murphy, re [2008] NZLLA 1311 (8 September 2008)

Last Updated: 7 February 2010

Decision No. PH 1311/2008

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by WILLIAM DEAN MURPHY 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: Ms J D Moorhead

HEARING at WELLINGTON on 2 September 2008

APPEARANCES

Mr W D Murphy – applicant
Sergeant C A Marner – NZ Police – in opposition
Mr R Putze – Wellington District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] Before the Authority is an application by William Dean Murphy for a General Manager's Certificate.

[2] Mr Murphy fulfils most of criteria set out in s.121 of the Act. There are no realistic concerns about his character and reputation. We have before us very positive references from his employers indicating that he brings a level of maturity to his current position which is as their new manager and that his role is stressful and fast paced but he remains calm. They indicated that it was very hard to find an employee who had a love for the hospitality industry beyond the minimum requirements and that Mr Murphy seemed to be interested in all facets of the business and goes above and beyond.

[3] The second criteria relates to any convictions incurred. In the evidence that we have received there are relevant convictions but they are historical going back to 1992.

[4] The third criteria relates to recent experience that the applicant has had in controlling licensed premises. Mr Murphy has been involved in the hospitality industry for close to 15 years but mostly as a doorman.

[5] His application for a certificate was filed in late May of this year. He was nominated as a temporary manager but the application was opposed and the opposition was supported by the Authority. As far as we can tell he has not had much recent experience in controlling licensed premises.

[6] He certainly has the relevant training and a copy of the Licence Controller Qualification was enclosed with the application. He has been interviewed and showed a good knowledge of the Act.

[7] Indeed from our own experience of Mr Murphy in the witness box, he is very keen to step up in terms of responsibility and leave behind the majority of his work as a doorman.

[8] Police opposition falls into two categories. The first relates to an incident that occurred on 29 March 2007, a little under 18 months ago. Mr Murphy was working at that time as a bouncer at the front door. The alleged victim wanted to go back in to get another drink but he was prevented from doing so because of his level of intoxication. Words were exchanged. According to Mr Murphy a bottle was thrown and he subsequently took the person in a headlock. The person suffered injuries to his mouth and face. He did not require medical attention.

[9] The assault charge was reduced from a Crimes Act assault to a Summary Offences assault. Mr Murphy entered a plea of guilty and he was discharged without conviction. He was ordered to make $500 reparation to the victim, write a letter of apology and pay costs.

[10] On the one hand there was a concern about the level of violence, on the other no conviction was entered. It is now nearly 18 months since that event and it may well be that the application has been overtaken by time and the incident should no longer act as an impediment to the grant of his certificate.

[11] There is a second matter which is still under investigation. It happened five months ago. Once again Mr Murphy was working on a temporary basis on the door. He said that there were two young men. He described them as boys who had been removed from the bar for intoxication. They were with two other friends. One of them started behaving badly and was pushing over barriers onto other people. He did this four times and on the fifth occasion, the Police having been called, Mr Murphy shoved the young man before he was able to cause injury to a bystander or a person waiting in the queue. The young man fell to the ground and an assault complaint was made. Whether this results in a conviction remains to be seen.

[12] It is clear that Mr Murphy has had enough of acting as a doorman and we have also taken into account that he is working in premises where attempts are being made to enforce the Act but the premises can have problems and they require good management. Mr Murphy for his part believes that he will be as good if not better than other managers in carrying out this sort of work. Only time will tell.

[13] For our perspective we are happy with the application in its present form. Mr Murphy is a mature individual and seems to know where he is going. What we have decided is that the application will be adjourned for a period of three months and we would like Mr Murphy to be appointed as a temporary manager from today if the ss.128 and 129 requirements of the Act have been complied with.

[14] After three months we will call for further reports and if there are no other adverse matters we intend to grant the application on the papers. If there are other matters that arise then it may well be that there has to be a further public hearing. As

far as the current charge is concerned if that becomes in due course a conviction, then it is possible that a suspension application may be lodged.

[15] The application is adjourned on those terms.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 8th day of September 2008

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

William Murphy.doc(aw)