Loye v Grewal [2008] NZLLA 459 (27 March 2008)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Loye v Grewal [2008] NZLLA 459 (27 March 2008)

Last Updated: 29 January 2010

Decision No. PH 459/2008-
PH 460/2008

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to s.135 of the Act for suspension of General Manager's Certificate number GM/007/983/03 issued to MONEY SINGH GREWAL

BETWEEN JASON PETER LOYE

(Police Officer of Avondale)

Applicant

AND MONEY SINGH GREWAL

Respondent

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by MONEY SINGH GREWAL 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 AUCKLAND on 11 March 2008

APPEARANCES

Sergeant J P Loye – NZ Police – applicant and in opposition to application for renewal of manager's certificate
Ms D L Beston – for respondent and applicant for renewal of manager's certificate
Mr A C Phillips – Auckland District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] There are two applications before us. The first application is by Money Singh Grewal for the renewal of his General Manager's Certificate. Mr Grewal was first issued a certificate on 5 September 2003. His certificate fell due for renewal on 5 September 2007.

[2] In his application for renewal Mr Grewal was asked whether he had been convicted of any offence since the certificate was issued. He said “no”. In fact there was a conviction and it involved liquor abuse. Mr Grewal thought that because the incident had occurred two years previously, it had reached the stage of no longer being relevant. As it happens the Police checked on the matter and issued an adverse report. This was based on a relevant conviction as well as an incident where Mr Grewal had also been drinking, but had subsequently been discharged without conviction.

[3] It was when the relevant conviction was discovered that the Police also decided to bring the second application for the suspension of the certificate. The ground for that application is that Mr Grewal's conduct has been such as to show a lack of suitability.

[4] The evidence before us shows that on 17 October 2004, Mr Grewal was driving a motor vehicle. He was stopped by the Police and eventually a blood sample was taken. An analysis of that sample showed Mr Grewal had a level of 148 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. He was subsequently charged and convicted and fined. On the one hand the level of alcohol in his blood was reasonably high, approaching twice the allowable limit. On the other hand, he did not drive very far. When he was dealt with in the District Court he gave evidence that he was moving the car for safety reasons only. In the circumstances the Judge decided not to disqualify him. The lack of disqualification is a significant aspect to the consequences of the offending.

[5] The second matter was a personal incident. It occurred on 27 October 2006. Mr Grewal was said to be intoxicated. He had been having a meal with his partner. He said he had drunk one or two glasses of wine. It is difficult to establish where the truth lies. At any event there was an argument and eventually an assault, the details of which are in dispute.

[6] The matter went before the District Court and Mr Grewal was discharged without conviction under s.106 of the Sentencing Act 2002. In other words he was given an opportunity to mend his ways. There seems to be no question but that he has done that. As his counsel has pointed out, Mr Grewal was going through a phase and he has grown up since. He has had a very important wake-up call. He has been through guidance relationship counselling and he has done something about any alcohol abuse that was occurring.

[7] Mr Grewal described in some detail how he has changed his attitude and his levels of fitness and wellbeing. He painted himself as a person who has completely changed his lifestyle. He says that he is very busy running a number of liquor stores. He has a sense of responsibility and he asked that his General Manager's Certificate not be suspended. He works only in off-licensed premises.

[8] We are satisfied that there were proper grounds for opposing the renewal of the General Manager's Certificate. We are also satisfied that the grounds for the suspension application have been made out. As was pointed out in the decision of Martin Ferguson v Alastair Robert Lyon LLA PH 57/2003:

“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 will be seen by the Authority as a desirable step towards the promotion of the object of the Act.”

[9] We believe that it would be an unreasonable response to decline the renewal application. We propose to renew the certificate for a period of 18 months which means effectively that the certificate will fall due for renewal again on 5 March 2009, in a little under one year's time. This is an opportunity for Mr Grewal to serve what could be called a probationary year to show that the incidents which occurred over the last three years are matters of the past and that the lessons have been learned.

[10] Notwithstanding Mr Grewal's earnest plea to escape sanction altogether, we believe in terms of national consistency, that a period of suspension is appropriate. We have taken into account as best we can all balancing factors. The period of suspension will be 14 days. For the reasons we have given General Manager's Certificate number GM/007/983/03, issued to Money Singh Grewal, is suspended for 14 days commencing on Monday 17 March 2008.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 27TH day March 2008

S Cunningham
Secretary

Money Singh Grewal.doc(aw)