Singh [2009] NZLLA 1172 (15 October 2009)

Last Updated: 28 January 2012

Decision No. PH 1172/2009

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by JASPREET SINGH 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: Dr J Horn

HEARING at CHRISTCHURCH on 24 September 2009

APPEARANCES

Mr J Singh – applicant
Mr M Ferguson – Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition
Senior Constable W Stevenson – NZ Police – to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application brought by Jaspreet Singh for the renewal of his General Manager’s Certificate.

[2] Mr Singh was granted his certificate on 16 January 2008. He did not use that certificate for long at the premises where he had been working. Indeed, about one or two months later he started working for an airline. While he was working away from the hospitality industry, he committed an offence under the Crimes Act 1961. The charge was indecently assaulting a female aged between 12 and 16 years.

[3] The Summary of Facts indicates that at around 11.30 am on the morning of Saturday 23 February 2008, a 15 year old girl alighted from a bus on Papanui Road in Christchurch. A vehicle pulled up behind her as she was walking. Mr Singh got out of his vehicle and engaged the victim in conversation. He asked the young girl where she was going and whether she would like a lift, but the young girl continued walking and said she did not. She crossed the road but Mr Singh got back in his vehicle and drove across the road and parked at an angle, making if difficult for her to proceed along the footpath. He then got out of the vehicle again and asked the same questions.

[4] Mr Singh backed up his vehicle slightly to allow the victim to walk past the front of the vehicle and then spoke to the victim again from the driver’s seat. He asked her several times to come to his apartment but she said that she would not. Eventually she did agree to go however, in the hope that he would stop pestering her. At this stage they were close to his apartment and he drove down a driveway. She followed him. He parked his car and opened the door to the house. The victim asked if she could go but he did not reply and nudged her into the house using his elbow.

[5] She went inside and Mr Singh closed the door. There was further discussion and the question of money was raised. It was then that Mr Singh pushed the victim up against the wall and indecently assaulted her, initially through her clothing but subsequently inside her clothing. What happened obviously scared the victim and made her too frightened to offer resistance. The indecent assault continued for a short period of time. Then Mr Singh removed his hand and the victim was able to open the door using the key that was in it, and run from the address to her mother’s workplace. The mother and child returned to the address and the registration number of the car was taken. Mr Singh was eventually spoken to by the Police. He acknowledged that he owned the vehicle and admitted that he had brushed his hand on the victim’s breast.

[6] Mr Singh is just 25 years of age. He has never appeared in a Court before for anything of this nature. There was a delay of approximately 12 months before the matter was resolved in the Christchurch District Court. On 4 March 2009 Mr Singh was convicted, ordered to pay $750 by way of emotional harm, and was sentenced to home detention for a period of four months. There were also special conditions to follow that sentence.

[7] Mr Singh for his part has asked for some leniency. He stated that what happened was totally out of character and it would never happen again. He has not been involved in the hospitality industry since that time. This was partly because of a misguided belief that he was not able to do so while there was opposition to the renewal. Because of the conviction he has not worked for the airline since earlier this year. He still believes that he has prospects within the hospitality industry.

[8] It is accepted that there were no liquor abuse issues. On the other hand s.126 of the Act requires us to take into account, among other matters Mr Singh’s character and reputation, as well as any conviction recorded against him since the certificate was issued. The Inspector asked the question “How can we have faith that Mr Singh will adhere to the requirements of the Act, given the conviction which goes towards suitability?”. Mr Ferguson referred to the well known decision of Deejay Enterprises Ltd LLA 531-532/97 in which it was suggested that self-imposed standards in accordance with the law must be set by the holders of General Managers’ Certificates.

[9] For our part we note that s.115 of the Act was amended in 1999 to require a manager to be on duty at all times when liquor is being sold to the public. The manager was made responsible for compliance with the Act, as well as the conditions of the licence. We note a further amendment in 2006 pursuant to which the manager was made responsible for enforcement of the provisions of the Act, as well as the conditions of the licence.

[10] In summary the control of the sale of liquor now rests on the shoulders of the holders of managers’ certificates. Our expectation is that managers will be people of integrity, committed to ensuring the safety of patrons, as well as setting an example on both sides of the bar.

[11] Although the case of Graham Leslie Osborne LLA 2388/95 was in relation to an application for a managers’ certificate, it is of assistance as a guideline. In that case the Authority said:

"Without fettering ourselves in this or other applications, it may be helpful if we indicate that we commonly look for a five year period free of any serious conviction or any conviction relating to or involving the abuse of alcohol or arising in the course of an applicant’s duty on licensed premises."

[12] Now this is not an application for a certificate but an application for renewal. On the other hand the incident occurred very shortly after the certificate was granted. Mr Singh has been out of the industry for quite a considerable period of time. The conviction has to be seen as serious. It is our view that Mr Singh has to start again. We believe that a renewal of this certificate could be used as a reference. Although we accept that Mr Singh would acknowledge the conviction, the certificate is an indication to others that Mr Singh is seen to be suitable. While he states that this type of incident will not happen again, he can only prove that by living out a substantial period of time when he has been free of similar offending.

[13] It is with regret therefore that we must decline this application. That is not the end of the matter however. If in the course of time Mr Singh returns to the industry, has suitable employment, and earns the trust of an employer (a person who is prepared to support the application at a future time), then it may be that more positive consideration can be given to a further application.

[14] For the reasons that we have stated, the application is declined.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 15th day of October 2009

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Jaspreet Singh.doc(jeh)