Silcock [2010] NZLLA 221 (19 March 2010)

Last Updated: 1 April 2010

Decision No.PH 221/2010

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by MARK RICHARD SILCOCK 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: Ms J D Moorhead

HEARING at AUCKLAND on 9 March 2010

APPEARANCES

Mr S L Taylor - agent for applicant
Ms A Mincher - Auckland District Licensing Agency Inspector - in opposition
Mr G S Whittle - NZ Police - in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This decision relates to an application brought by Mark Richard Silcock pursuant to s.118 of the Act for a General Manager's Certificate.
[2] In considering this application there are some legal matters that are relevant. Firstly s.121 of the Act sets out the criteria applicable for managers’ certificates. The Authority is required to have regard to the following matters:

(a) The character and reputation of the applicant:

(b) Any convictions recorded against the applicant:

(c) Any experience, in particular recent experience, that the applicant has had in controlling any premises or conveyance in respect of which a licence was in force:

(d) Any relevant training, in particular recent training, that the applicant has undertaken and evidence the applicant holds the prescribed qualification required under section 117A:

(e) Any matters dealt with in any report made under section 119.

[3] The Authority has commented on some of the matters which have been raised in this application. In Deejay Enterprises Limited NZLLA 531 – 532/97 the Authority noted:

“The broad pattern in recent years has been to gently raise the requisite standard for licensees and the holder of a General Manager's Certificate. The Authority has been critical of applicants who fail to disclose all their convictions.”

[4] In this regard we refer to Christopher David Rowson NZLLA 1375/95 also Antony Raymond Johns NZLLA 974/98 and John Lawson Parkins NZLLA 2142/99. In each of those cases the Authority refused the applications.
[5] Turning now to the matters which are of concern to the Authority. This applicant has three previous drink driving convictions. The first of those was in 1996, the second was in 2000 and the latest was in 2008. Whilst there is a considerable period of time between each of those convictions nevertheless they do reveal a pattern of alcohol abuse that is relevant to this application. We refer to the object of the Act set out in s.4.
[6] There is no evidence that any alcohol abuse counselling has been undertaken or any other similar counselling. That too would be a relevant consideration given the three previous drink driving convictions. It is of concern to the Authority that the applicant has been particularly cavalier in the way he has approached this application and we refer particularly to the following matters:

• [a] First, he failed to disclose all previous convictions. The convictions for common assault and the three drink driving convictions were obviously relevant to any application;
• [b] Secondly, he failed to mention the criticism which he received from the Police when he was licensee and general manager of the “Lighthouse Tavern” at a hearing before this Authority in January 2008;
• [c] Third, he failed to call the liquidator of his employer when the employer is apparently in liquidation. This is relevant when it is recognised that General Managers’ Certificates are not given to persons who are not employed in the industry. If the employer is about to cease business then that plainly is a matter of relevance to the application;
• [d] Fourth, the applicant has two previous convictions that indicate a failure to comply with Court orders. It is recognised that the driving whilst disqualified conviction is somewhat dated. The applicant has an explanation for his failure to answer bail in that he went to Australia. Certainly he knew that there was a drink driving charge pending when he went to Australia. It is accepted that upon his return to New Zealand he made a voluntary appearance at the Court and entered a guilty plea to the drink driving charge. Nevertheless he breached his bail; and
• [e] Finally, on his own evidence he failed to initially disclose to his employer that he did not have a General Manager's Certificate when he knew that this was an integral condition of his employment. He says he did not realise that it had expired. He should have.

[7] Turning again to the criteria set out in s.121(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, it is apparent for the foregoing reasons that this applicant’s character and reputation do not measure up to the standards set forth in the Deejay Enterprises Limited decision. Further, the convictions are relevant and of concern to the Authority particularly in the light of the Graham Leslie Osborne NZLLA 2388/95.
[8] Taking all those matters into account, the application is declined.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 19TH day of March 2010

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Mark Silcock.doc(aw)