Walker, re [2009] NZLLA 1482 (22 December 2009)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Walker, re [2009] NZLLA 1482 (22 December 2009)

Last Updated: 18 January 2010

Decision No. PH 1482/2009

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by ADELE KAREN WALKER 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 TAURANGA on 30 November 2009

APPEARANCES

Mr J Mackie – on behalf of applicant
Sergeant N P McGlone – NZ Police – in opposition
Mr G J Cushing – Tauranga District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] Before the Authority is an application by Adele Karen Walker for a General Manager's Certificate.
[2] By and large Ms Walker qualifies for a certificate in terms of the criteria set out in s.121 of the Act. She is the holder of the Licence Controller Qualification. Her application was filed on 24 June 2009.
[3] She has previously held a General Manager's Certificate which was not renewed when it fell due in 2007. She has the support of an employer who appeared on her behalf. She has two further persons prepared to give evidence as to her character and reputation, one being a former employer. She obviously has the necessary experience to control licensed premises.
[4] The application has resulted in a public hearing because of concerns raised by the Police. Part of those concerns relate to a conviction which resulted from a trespass charge. This incident took place on Sunday 2 September 2007 at a bar that Ms Walker had previously managed. There were concerns about her state of intoxication. She was verbally trespassed but refused to leave. Eventually the Police had to arrest her.
[5] The incident clearly showed that Ms Walker had let her personal standards slip. However, the incident occurred a little over two years previously and as such should not really prevent the issue of a certificate.
[6] What is of greater significance are the unanswered allegations about Ms Walker’s association with a well known criminal and member of the Mongrel Mob.
[7] There were two incidents that were referred to and these have not been challenged. On 28 April 2008 the Armed Offenders Squad arrived at an address in Tauranga to execute a search warrant. The search warrant was part of a wider Police drug investigation. Ms Walker arrived at the address shortly before the warrant was issued. As a result her car was searched and a small red and white tin was found in the console. Inside the tin were five small snap lock bags commonly used for carrying methamphetamine. Each bag had white powder residue in it.
[8] Ms Walker said at the time that she was the only one who drove her car and she had never seen the tin before. She contended that she did not know what it contained or how it got into her vehicle. We were advised by Ms Walker’s representative that another person had subsequently pleaded guilty to the ownership of the drugs and was due to be dealt with.
[9] The person who lived at the address is now facing some 30 active charges in relation to possession of drugs for supply, selling drugs, and conspiracy to deal in the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine.
[10] When Ms Walker was asked about this particular visit she said that she had called to see another woman at the address and not the person whose address it was.
[11] There was a further incident in July 2009 quite recently. Constable D B Elliott was on patrol when he saw two sets of vehicle tail lights side by side. He pulled up behind and one of the vehicles moved in front. The driver of the rear vehicle was Ms Walker. She had a female passenger in the passenger seat. She was asked what she was doing and said she was dropping off a person. She said she did not know the person ahead of her but was advised that she had just been talking to that person when observed by the Police. At that stage the passenger said that the person in front was a friend of her partner’s.
[12] A few seconds later the same well known person who resided at the previous address got out of the front vehicle. There was some toing and froing. It was quite clear that Ms Walker was not being openly honest or forthcoming. She denied that she knew the particular person. However, this person returned and seemed interested in the vehicle being driven by Ms Walker. At that stage her denial of any knowledge was accepted by the Police. The Constable returned to the station and discovered the previous link to which reference has already been made.
[13] There was therefore clear association (denied at the time by Ms Walker) between herself and a person who was of considerable interest to the Police. This was a person with whom the association by any holder of a manager’s certificate would be regarded with great suspicion and anxiety. It would not, in our view, be possible for a person to be the holder of a manager’s certificate who was associated with the type of person described in the evidence.
[14] Ms Walker was to obtain legal advice which fell through at the last moment and she was represented by her employer. The decision was made for Ms Walker not to give evidence. One of the witnesses acknowledged that there had been an association with this person, but congratulated her on stopping that association. In our view if there was to be a break in any association that could only have occurred since last July. Such a change in circumstances has not been established before us.
[15] We are left with the situation where given her decision not to give evidence, there is no challenge to the facts. Normally we would decline the application but it may be that Ms Walker needs to think about what has happened and then decide whether or not she is prepared to give evidence on oath or affirmation about this particular relationship.
[16] We have therefore decided the case will be adjourned for a minimum of six months. This is to give Ms Walker an opportunity to prove that association does not exist (or possibly that it never existed). Trying to prove a negative is not easy. It may be that further information and evidence is needed.
[17] We have therefore decided that rather than decline the application we will give Ms Walker another opportunity to decide how this issue is to be confronted. She will have a later opportunity to show (perhaps with the benefit of other witnesses), that there is no association between herself and this other person and how long that non-association has been in existence. If that is the case it may well be that she will be considered suitable to hold a certificate. Absent any such proof then it is likely that her application will be declined.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 22ND day of December 2009

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Adele Walker. doc(aw)