Cox v Langkilde [2009] NZLLA 242 (18 March 2009)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Cox v Langkilde [2009] NZLLA 242 (18 March 2009)

Last Updated: 5 March 2010

Decision No. PH 242/2009 – PH 243/2009

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/08/335/2007 issued to HELEN LANGKILDE

BETWEEN STEPHEN GOODHALL COX

(Police Officer of Manukau)

Applicant

AND HELEN LANGKILDE

Respondent

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by HELEN LANGKILDE pursuant to s.123 of the Act for the renewal of 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 5 March 2009

APPEARANCES

Constable C D Lally – NZ Police – applicant and in opposition to application for renewal of General Manager’s Certificate
Ms H Langkilde – respondent and applicant for renewal of General Manager’s Certificate
Mr P A Radich – Manukau District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition to application for renewal of General Manager’s Certificate

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] There are two matters before the Authority. The first is an application by Helen Langkilde for the renewal of her General Manager’s Certificate. Ms Langkilde was first granted her certificate on 21 December 2007. She duly applied for renewal following her ‘probationary’ year.

[2] She was asked in the application whether she had been convicted of any offence since the certificate was issued. She said no. In accordance with the Act, the Police were asked to report on the application. The Police view this monitoring process as an opportunity to ensure that persons who hold certificates maintain standards reflecting the fit and proper person criteria to continue to hold the privilege of a certificate.

[3] The Police discovered that during her probationary year Ms Langkilde had received a conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol content. The facts show that the offending occurred on 20 September 2008. Ms Langkilde was stopped at a Police checkpoint operation. Following breath test procedures she asked that a sample of blood be provided. On analysis this was showed to contain 100 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Ms Langkilde was taken before the District Court and was convicted, fined and disqualified from driving.

[4] Her behaviour was aggravated by two features. Firstly that the offending took place during what is known as the ‘probationary’ year for the holding of a certificate. Secondly, there had been a relatively recent previous conviction arising out of an incident on 13 March 2005, when Ms Langkilde had a breath alcohol level of 684 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, for which she was duly fined and disqualified.

[5] A further regrettable feature about the matter is that when she applied originally for her certificate Ms Langkilde did not disclose the first conviction. On that occasion she stated she had honestly forgotten about the matter. She stated that she leads a busy life being a mother as well as working at licensed premises. On the second occasion the relatively recent matter was foremost in her mind, but she was unsure whether or not the disclosure should be made. The Licensing Inspector for the Agency discussed the matter with her and formed the view that she may not have deliberately attempted to mislead the reporting agencies. On the other hand it was accepted that Ms Langkilde had displayed extremely poor judgement.

[6] In considering the renewal of a certificate one of the criteria to be taken into account under s.126 of the Act, is the character and reputation of the applicant. Ms Langkilde made a good impression in the witness box in that regard.

[7] The other positive factor is that she uses her certificate at licensed premises the business of which is an upmarket hotel located near the Auckland International Airport. The business does not feature at all as a venue that contributes to alcohol related harm.

[8] Ms Langkilde was able to make the connection between the object of the Act and her own person behaviour. She says that it will not happen again. She owes such a scenario firstly to her own family, and secondly to her employer. She has asked to be treated leniently.

[9] As far as the renewal is concerned we would not refuse the renewal based on the one incident, aggravated as it was by the earlier matter. However, we would not be prepared to renew the certificate for the full period. The certificate will be renewed for 12 months only. This means that it will fall due for renewal on 21 December 2009 in just over nine months time.

[10] We hope that the reduced period of renewal will serve as a reminder to Ms Langkilde that any offending involving liquor abuse by a certificated manager will place the certificate at risk.

[11] The second matter is the application for suspension. It followed opposition to the renewal of the certificate. The application was based on the ground that Ms Langkilde's conduct has been such as to show a lack of suitability. She has certainly done so and we believe that it is desirable to make an order. We refer to the decision of Martin Ferguson v Alister Robert Lyon LLA PH 57/2003 in which it was said:

“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.”

[12] For those reasons General Manager’s Certificate number GM/08/335/2007, issued to Helen Langkilde, is suspended for 28 days from Thursday 5 March 2009.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 18th day of March 2009

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Helen Langkilde.doc(aw)