Van Der Veeken and Fabrie v Masonic Hotel [2011] NZLLA 608 (28 June 2011)

Last Updated: 3 August 2011

[2011] NZLLA PH 608

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to s.132 of the Act for suspension of an on-licence number 116/ON/16/07 issued to H M MASONIC LIMITED in respect of premises situated at 68-72 Duke Street, Cambridge, known as “Masonic Hotel”

BETWEEN MARIUS CORNELIUS VAN DER VEEKEN

(Police Officer of Cambridge)

AND DIRK FABRIE

(Waipa District Licensing Agency Inspector)

Applicants

AND H M MASONIC LIMITED

Respondent

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge J D Hole
Member: Mr P M McHaffie

HEARING at HAMILTON on 23 June 2011

APPEARANCES

Sergeant M C Van Der Veeken – NZ Police – applicant
Mr D Fabrie – Waipa District Licensing Agency Inspector – applicant
Ms J M McLennan – on behalf of respondent

DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This decision relates to an application brought under s.132 of the Act for the suspension of the on-licence issued to H M Masonic Limited. The application alleges pursuant to s.132(3)(a) of the Act that the licensed premises were conducted on 24 December 2009 in breach of s.155 of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989.

[2] On that day two persons aged under 18 entered “One Bar” (part of the licensed premises) and purchased liquor.

[3] The duty manager was advised of the result of the failed controlled purchase operation on 27 December 2009.

[4] The application is dated 8 July 2010.

[5] The facts were admitted. Accordingly the grounds for the application were established.

[6] In accordance with s.132(6) of the Act the Authority considers that it is not desirable to make any order. The reasons are as follows:

• [a] The period of time which elapsed between the incident and notification offered to the duty manager was excessive. It effectively precluded a defence under s.155(4) of the Act;
  
• [b] The period of time between the incident and the making of the application is excessive. To make an order in these circumstances effectively penalises the licensee when significant changes have occurred and which apparently have the effect of reducing the likelihood of any similar incident occurring in the future;
  
• [c] At the time of the incident “One Bar” was being conducted under the licence by the duty manager, Ms Christian, as a separate business. As a result of the incident this arrangement has ceased. The bar is now conducted as part and parcel of the licensed premises by the licensee. Problems previously associated with “One Bar” have ceased.
  

DATED at WELLINGTON this 28TH day of June 2011

B M Holmes
Secretary

Masonic Hotel.doc(aw)