Submission to ARLA from a Licensing Inspector Regarding Cancellation of a Manager S Certificate

Example of a closing submission

Submission to ARLA from a Licensing Inspector regarding cancellation of a manager’s certificate under section 285

Note that this is a fictional application and brief of evidence. Any attachments referred to in the brief are not included here.

Submission from Mr Samuel Johnson, Licensing Inspector, Mananui District Council

regarding application to suspend Mr Thomas Jones’ manager’s licence under s.285

Mr Jones asks that you not cancel his manager’s certificate, arguing that the consequences outweigh the offending.

I strongly disagree, as this type of offending strikes at the very principles we expect managers of licensed premises to adhere to and preserve at all times.

I wish to refer you to some previous decisions of the Authority.

In Timothy Stanley Francis PH 843/2008 the Authority referred to the decision of Deejay Enterprises Limited LLA 531-532/97, in which the Authority said:

“The guiding hand or hands-on operator of any company or the potential holder of a General Manager’s Certificate now receive greater scrutiny from both the Police and other reporting agencies. Character and reputation are closely examined. The law and human desires of patrons frequently tug in different directions. The Police cannot be everywhere. Little but a licensee’s or manager’s character and suitability may stand between upholding the law and turning a blind eye. Self imposed standards in accordance with the law must be set by licensees and holders of General Manager’s Certificates who control and manage licensed premises.”

The Authority also stated in Thomas: “That decision [Deejay Enterprises] was delivered 10 years ago but is equally pertinent today.”

It is now nearly 20 years since that decision and in my submission the statement is even more pertinent today as we continue to experience high levels of alcohol-related harm and managers keep coming to notice with convictions affecting their suitability. As the Authority said in Deejay: “Little but a licensee’s or manager’s character and suitability may stand between upholding the law and turning a blind eye”.

In Thomas,paragraph 10, the Authority went on to say when referencing WR Stewart LLA PH 881/05:

“We believe that raising the bar for the holders of General Manager’s Certificates and keeping it at a certain height has the potential to bring about a reduction in the abuse of liquor nationwide. If certain otherwise meritorious applicants suffer in the process that may not be too high a price to pay in order to achieve this long term goal.”

I refer you to another decision.

In Faye Lynette Starkey PH 145/2003 and PH 147/2003, at paragraph 24, the Authority reminded itself of the High Court decision Hayford v Christchurch District AP201/92, in which Justice Holland said:

“A holder of a liquor licence under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 is granted a privilege. It permits him to sell liquor when others are not permitted to do so.”

In my submission the same applies to manager’s certificate holders.

There are a number of aggravating features in this matter today.

Firstly, Mr Jones was interviewed and granted a manager’s certificate on 19 August 2011. During this interview I discussed the consequences of convictions and the standards expected of general managers.

Unknown to me at the time of this interview, Mr Jones had already admitted to Police that he had made a false statement that a crime had been committed, and he had been arrested and charged.

Had he admitted to me that this charge was pending, the application for a manager’s certificate would have been strongly opposed.

Secondly, Mr Jones had an excess blood alcohol conviction on 23 December 2008. It is of great concern to the Inspector that in his sworn affidavit in support of a discharge without conviction he states that the conviction was on 7 September 2007. The offence date was actually 7 September 2008, making the offence more recent and therefore more relevant.

Thirdly, Mr Hanbury states in paragraph 16 of his submission that Mr Jones will lose his employment if he loses his manager’s certificate. In contrast, Mr Jones tells the Authority that he is employed as a chef. A chef does not require a manager’s certificate and should not be appointed as a duty manager. I doubt very much that his employment is at risk should his manager’s certificate be cancelled.

Fourthly, Mr Jones has sworn in his affidavit that his co-offenders met up with him at Club 99 and they discussed a plan to tell the Police that the car had been stolen. The Summary of Facts, which he has pled guilty to, stated that the three met up at Nandar Singh’s flat in Norman Street and devised the plan.

Clearly one version of events is incorrect. An examination of the Police files indicated that Mr Jones was the ‘brains’ behind the plan to deceive the Police. He was not a passive bystander drawn into the incident as submitted by his counsel. Last week I had occasion to speak with Nandar Singh, one of his co-offenders, who was seeking to be reconsidered for a manager’s certificate. He also claimed that he was drawn in and misled by the others.

Fifthly, the Authority has already refused an application by one of his co-offenders, Malcolm Gilly, in October 2011, citing the seriousness of the offence and conviction and his lack of experience.

And finally I refer the Authority to Faye Lynette Starkey PH 145/2003 and PH 147/2003 when the Authority discussed discharge without conviction atparagraph 30:

“The issue is whether the Authority should be behind the plea. In our view such a plea carries the same weight as a guilty verdict from a jury. There are a number of offenders who protest their innocence in the face of such a finding, but the verdict speaks for itself.”

Mr Jones has pled guilty to making a false statement to Police that a crime has been committed. This is a serious offence and the Authority should not look behind the plea.

It is my submission that the aggravating features of this offending outweigh the potential consequences to Mr Jones. He should have thought of those before deciding to make a false statement to Police. Similarly, he should have thought twice before deciding to drive with excess blood alcohol in 2008.

He chose not to.

With respect, I also submit the threshold of proof is on the balance of probability. Is it more likely than not that he will choose to take the path of least resistance when faced with adversity again? I submit he will.

He can continue to work as a chef but in my view is totally unsuitable to continue to hold a manager’s certificate at this time.

I urge the Authority to cancel the manager’s certificate.

Mr Samuel Johnson, Licensing Inspector, Mananui District Council