Police Fail In Quest Over Licences

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30736, 28 April 1965, Page 13

Police Fail In Quest Over Licences

<Aeiv Zealand Press Association)

DUNEDIN, April 27. Police applications for the cancellation or suspension of tin ee Dunedin hotel-keepers’ licences, the first such applications to be made under the 1962 Sale of Liquor Act, were refused bx the Dunedin Licensing Committee in a split decision announced today.

Three members of the committee of five favoured the refusal of the applications but two, including the chairman, Mr J. D. Willis, S.M., considered two of the three licensees should have lost their licences.

Mr J. G. Barnes gave the decision of the majority—himself and Messrs R. S. Jones and A. G. Ross. The applications concerned the licensees of the Clarendon Hotel (Reginald Thompson), the Prince of Wales Hotel (Bertie George), and the Broadway Hotel (William Francis and Margaret Elizabeth Aitken, joint holders). The grounds for the applications involved after hours trading in all cases. In Thompson’s case, the police alleged he also failed to conduct the hotel in a proper manner.

Aitken, police alleged, also failed to do this and the third ground was that he was "openly and repeatedly intoxicated.” Mr Barnes said he and Messrs Ross and Jones considered it would be a miscarriage of justice in all cases to cancel the licences. Police would have needed a stronger case in each instance “when it is realised the penalty asked for is virtually taking from the licensees their

livelihood, and perhaps bringing about their financial ruin.” It was unprecedented for the police to ask for the cancellation of licences, and “we might ask ourselves if Dunedin has the three worst licensees in the country.” Mr Barnes said the application by the police at some future time for cancellation for a similar series of offences would undoubtedly not meet with a favourable decision for the licensees.”

The case of Bertie George was the most serious presented. George would have to take a more personal hand in the running of his hotel. The situation of Thompson’s hotel made it difficult to control—“he would do well to heed this decision.”

Mrs Aitken had only one conviction and was considered a fit person to hold a licence. Aitken, however, was “highly excitable” and became worse after consuming liquor—“he would be wise to understand his own difficulty.” extreme cases Summing up, Mr Barnes said the committee had no margin within the present legislation which made it difficult for the police to succeed with a case where the responsibility was possible or probable loss of livelihood. Cancellation could only be justified by extreme cases of violation.

Mr Willis, on behalf of himself and Mr R. H. Malcolm, said they would “unhesitatingly cancel” the licences of Thompson and George. They would agree with the

other committee members in refusing the police application in respect of the Aitkens but the couple could, from hints offered, and for their own benefit, be induced to obtain other means of livelihood.

Dealing with Thompson, Mr Willis said the serious nature of the offences was indicated by the rising penalties imposed.

In five cases out of six, the licensee was on the premises and in a position to know what was going on. “The licensee has deliberately flouted the law in spite of warnings that he should mend his ways. He has apparently been prepared to run the risk of detection and regards the'payment of fines as extra licence fees.

“We would have no hesitation in granting the police application for cancellation, but as the other three members of the committee differ, it must be refused.”

“UNSTABLE, EXCITABLE” Aitken, Mr Willis said, was clearly an unstable and excitable individual who would be better employed in some other type of business.

The list of convictions was not formidable and fines were reasonably light, indicating that offences were not as serious as might be thought. Both licensees would be aware they had a “somewhat uneasy tenure and further breaches of the law may lead to renewed and perhaps successful applications by the police.”

George, Mr Willis said, had six convictions between June and December, 1964, but it was in 1965 that his “deliberate flouting of the law” became more apparent when he had seven convictions in six weeks.

Although the licensee had a serious accident in 1964 and was on crutches for some time afterwards, his temporary disability had “sufficiently disappeared when he was convicted in December 1964, and certainly when he was convicted seven times in several weeks early in 1965. “It can be fairly said of this licensee that he has blatantly disregarded his obligations under the Licensing Act and also all warnings of the Court. “His general conduct shows he is quite unsuited to be a licensee.

“In this case, too, we would unhesitatingly grant the application for cancellation of licence but the contrary views of the other three members of the committee must prevail,” said Mr Willis.