Tuliau [2010] NZLLA 149 (5 March 2010)

Last Updated: 1 April 2010

Decision No. PH 149/2010

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by KYLE AITA TULIAU pursuant to s.118 of the Act for a General Manager's Certificate

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge J D Hole
Member: Dr J Horn

HEARING at CHRISTCHURCH on 23 February 2010

APPEARANCES

Mr K A Tuliau - applicant
Mr M Ferguson - Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector - in opposition
Sergeant A J Lawn - NZ Police - in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This decision relates to an application dated 23 September 2009 brought by Kyle Aita Tuliau pursuant to s.118 of the Act for a General Manager's Certificate. The application is opposed by both the Police and the Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector.
[2] The reason that the application is opposed is that on 16 July 2009 the applicant was apprehended for fighting in a public place. The applicant freely admits the offence. He says that it was a Wednesday night and he was out with friends. After having a few drinks they went to the “Bush Bar” in Riccarton where he became intoxicated. He recognises that his judgment was impaired.
[3] The “Bush Bar” closed at 2.00 am and the applicant together with his friends, went outside. A car load of young people drew up. The occupants of the car and the applicant’s friends traded abuse and ultimately the applicant says that he thought he should do something to quieten down the situation, which he tried to do. A person in the car then insulted him and as the applicant said “I decided he deserved a smack”. Accordingly, he punched the person in the car once in the mouth. He freely acknowledges that he was lucky to have been charged merely with fighting as the actions that he took would have constituted an assault.
[4] The applicant was convicted of fighting and sentenced to a fine of $200 together with Court costs of $130. Notwithstanding this however, having signed a letter admitting his guilt he would have been entitled to diversion under the Police Diversion scheme.
[5] This does not affect this application. It is not what happened to the applicant as a result of the incident, rather it is the incident itself which causes concern to the Authority. The incident came about as a result of the abuse of alcohol by the applicant. The applicant lost control of himself and engaged in a physical confrontation. All of this occurred in July 2009 which is approximately seven months ago.
[6] The applicant is employed as a venue manager at the “Boogie Nightclub”. He has been employed there for about nine months and has worked for the last two years in similar establishments. He impresses as a keen employee who enjoys his job and tries to do his best in it. Effectively he is in charge of what happens at the “Boogie Nightclub” although that has to be subject to the duties imposed by the Act on whoever is the duty manager at the time.
[7] Since the incident of July 2009 the applicant says that he has reassessed his life. For quite some time he did not drink. He does drink now but in moderation. He is aware of the object of the Act (set out in s.4) and expressed it well to the Authority in laymen’s language.
[8] In reaching its decision the Authority is aware of the principles expressed in G L Osborne NZLLA 2388/95. General managers must be prepared to act as role models in the community. They must be people who are able to control the abuse of alcohol both personally and in the community itself. They must be people who are able to react soberly and patiently when confronted with awkward situations. The applicant, in July 2009, failed to uphold the standards that the Authority expects of a duty manager.
[9] The conclusion that the Authority has reached is that this application is premature. Generally speaking the Authority requires approximately two years to elapse after an offence has been committed before it is prepared to grant a General Manager's Certificate. In this case only seven months have elapsed.
[10] When one looks at s.121 of the Act relating to the criteria for a General Manager's Certificate, the Authority reaches the conclusion that the applicant has yet to establish that his character and reputation are beyond blemish. In particular further time needs to elapse before the Authority can be confident that he is able to control his own consumption of alcohol and any anger that he might feel when placed in a difficult situation.
[11] For the reasons that we have expressed, this application for a General Manager's Certificate is declined.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 5TH day of March 2010

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Kyle Tuliau.doc(aw)