Suckling v Liquor & Tobacco City [2012] NZLLA 339 (10 April 2012)

Last Updated: 4 May 2012

[2012] NZLLA 339

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 or cancellation of off-licence number 007/OFF/9027/2011 issued to LIQUOR & TOBACCO CITY LIMITED in respect of premises situated at 45 Victoria Street West, Auckland, known as "Liquor & Tobacco City"

BETWEEN BRIDGET JANE SUCKLING

(Police Officer of Auckland)

Applicant

AND LIQUOR & TOBACCO CITY LIMITED

Respondent

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

DECISION

We have before us an application by Constable B J Suckling of Auckland Police dated 16 February 2012, for suspension or cancellation of an off-licence.

The ground for the application is that the premises have been conducted in an improper manner and the conduct of the licensee has been such as to show that it is not suitable to hold the licence.

In decision [2011] NZLLA PH 861, dated 10 August 2011, where this respondent was the respondent, the Authority determined at paragraph [10] of the decision:

“[10] Accordingly, in reliance on Mr Claunch’s evidence, the Authority considers that the sale of ‘Kronic’ (or any other mind altering substance likely to lead to the excessive consumption of liquor (other than liquor itself)) in licensed premises is evidence of a licensee’s unsuitability in terms of s.132(3)(b) of the Act as this involves liquor abuse.”

In terms of s.132(6) of the Act no order was made.

On Thursday 26 January 2012, during a routine compliance visit to “Liquor & Tobacco City” the Police found displayed in the premises a number of mind-altering products some of which were decorated with a cannabis leaf logo. There were also a number of implements such as metal pipes and weighing instruments, generally associated with smoking cannabis or other mind-altering substances.

The licensee insisted that they were not selling cannabis and required evidence in writing of their inability to continue to sell the products in question, notwithstanding that the Authority’s decision had already demonstrated that such sales called into question the licensee’s suitability.

The respondent claimed that it had not received a copy of the Authority’s decision in respect of the previous hearing. That decision had been posted to the respondent’s business address, which was entered on the appearance slip completed by Mr S Patel who gave evidence on behalf of the respondent at those proceedings. The decision was not returned undelivered.

This application was to have been heard on 21 March 2012. However, by joint memorandum from the Police and counsel for the respondent, the ground for the application is acknowledged and a negotiated settlement has been achieved in the following terms as per point 10 of the memorandum:

(a) a one day suspension of the Company’s off-licence for the premises from midnight on Tuesday 10 April 2012 to midnight Wednesday 11 April 2012; and

(b) the Company undertakes to stop selling all products that could be used in relation to cannabis including small pipes containing metal gauze, small wooden pipes, and instruments that can be used for the weighing of cannabis; and

(c) the Company undertakes to stop selling all products with the cannabis symbol on them; and

(d) in accordance with the Decision the Company will stop selling any synthetic cannabinoids or any mind altering substances.

With some reservations the Authority has agreed to endorse the agreement. Accordingly, by consent:

Off-licence number 007/OFF/9027/2011, issued to Liquor & Tobacco City Limited, is suspended for 24 hours from 12.00 midnight onTuesday 10 April 2012.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 10th day of 20 April 12

B M Holmes
Secretary

Liquor & Tobacco City2.doc(ab)