Paul, re [2008] NZLLA 1710 (9 December 2008)

Last Updated: 12 February 2010

Decision No. PH 1710/2008

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by GARY TUTEITI PAUL 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: Dr J Horn

HEARING at CHRISTCHURCH on 2 December 2008

APPEARANCES

Mr G T Paul – applicant
Mr M Ferguson – Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Sergeant A J Lawn – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Gary Tuteiti Paul for a General Manager's Certificate. Mr Paul is a mature individual who started working on a part time basis at licensed premises in Christchurch known as the "Lancaster Park Hotel" in April 2008. This was a part time job because Mr Paul's primary source of income is from his employment as a grocery assistant.

[2] It is clear that Mr Paul has become used to the hospitality industry quite quickly, and his employers encouraged him to apply for his manager's certificate. Two of his employers were present at the hearing to attest as to his punctuality, his politeness, and his reliability. He is a person who has the unqualified trust of his employers who are prepared and willing to have him appointed as the manager of the premises. Other references were also supplied.

[3] The application was filed in August of this year. It received adverse reports based mainly on a list of previous convictions. This list was aggravated by a charge which involved liquor abuse which occurred in October 2005, just over three years ago.

[4] Mr Paul had a purple patch in his life from when he was about 13 years of age until he was 23. During that time he incurred a large number of quite serious convictions. Three of the relevant convictions related to his driving with excess breath or blood alcohol content. Two of these convictions took place in 1978 and the third in 1983, when he refused a request for a blood sample.

[5] It is clear however, that from 1983 (25 years ago), Mr Paul has led an exemplary life. He has been able to put the past behind him, and get on with the proactive business of living.

[6] Regrettably he fell from grace on 21 October 2005. He was apprehended on that occasion for driving with excess breath alcohol content. The level was 669 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. Mr Paul has explained how this came about, including the stress that he was under at the time. He has stated that he has resolved not to repeat the conduct. How people are able to validate such a resolve is generally done by the passage of time. It is now three years since the event itself. On the other hand there were previous matters.

[7] Mr Paul has given a very positive account of himself in the witness box. That has to be balanced against the submissions received from the Police and the Inspector. They argued that if we are to achieve the Act's objective and attain a social change where the tolerance of liquor abuse is no longer acceptable, then managers must lead by example both in their actions while in control of licensed premises, and when off duty.

[8] It was also submitted that the amendment to the Act in 2006 placed greater responsibility on the shoulders of managers to enforce the Act. It was therefore argued that there should be even greater scrutiny of an applicant's character and suitability.

[9] That has been the case at this hearing. We are satisfied that Mr Paul is well able to make the connection between his own personal behaviour and achieving the Act's objective. The place where he works has a 24-hour licence but seems to be well managed and able to control the sale of liquor without adverse harmful effects.

[10] Under the guideline decision of G L Osborne LLA 2388/95 a period of two years conviction or incident-free is thought to represent an appropriate length of time where a person can show that the offending is isolated and unlikely to be repeated. There are other historical matters but three years has now expired. Out of an abundance of caution our decision is not to refuse the application but to adjourn it for a period of six months. We would anticipate that there is no reason why Mr Paul cannot be appointed as a temporary manager of the premises in three months' time. In other words he will spend up to three months working as a temporary manager to gain experience. After a period of six months and provided there are no other adverse comments, we propose to grant the application on the papers.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 9th day of December 2008

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Gary Paul.doc(aw)