Lawton, re [2008] NZLLA 576 (22 April 2008)

Last Updated: 2 October 2010

Decision No. PH 576/2008

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by JAMIE ANDREW LAWTON 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 AUCKLAND on 8 April 2008

APPEARANCES

No appearance by or on behalf of applicant
Mr G S Whittle – Auckland District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Sergeant J P Loye – NZ Police – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Jamie Andrew Lawton for a General Manager's Certificate. The application was filed with the Auckland District Licensing Agency on 17 October 2006.

[2] The application has been delayed because the Police discovered that there was a current active charge for driving with excess breath alcohol that had originated in Queenstown. The outcome of the charge was an important factor because Mr Lawton had two previous convictions for similar offending. The first conviction occurred in 1993. The second incident occurred in 2001 when Mr Lawton had a breath alcohol content of 829 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

[3] The evidence shows that on 4 November 2006, Mr Lawton was apprehended for his third drink driving offence. He was subsequently convicted in the Auckland District Court on 28 February 2007. His level was 600 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. Mr Lawton was ordered to carry out 160 hours of community work, but interestingly, was not disqualified.

[4] The application was supported by the Licence Controller Qualification. Mr Lawton had a positive reference from the licensee of the premises that had been nominated as the place where he had been working. Mr Lawton failed to appear in support of his application at the public hearing, although it is noted that one of the letters from the Authority's staff was returned. Nevertheless when applicants fail to appear and there has been no explanation given for the non-appearance, the Authority draws the inference that they are no longer interested in pursuing their application.

[5] In those circumstances we are not satisfied as to the criteria set out in S 121 of the Act, and accordingly, the application is refused.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 22ND day of April 2008

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Jamie Lawton.doc(aw)