Due process failure in bar case
A DUNEDIN police officer’s abuse of process has meant his application to suspend an Octagon bar’s alcohol licence has been struck out.
Police alcohol harm prevention officer Sergeant Ian Paulin applied to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (Arla) to have the Dunedin Social Club’s onlicence suspended for irresponsible promotion of alcohol and unauthorised sale and supply.
A hearing was scheduled for later this month, but Arla chairman Judge Kevin Kelly struck out the two enforcement applications this week because Sgt Paulin failed to follow due process.
Judge Kelly ruled Sgt Paulin had not followed the correct process when he served Main land Hospitality Ltd, owner of the Octagon bar, with his submission and filed additional evidence 28 days later than allowed.
Lawyers for Mainland Hospitality argued it had left them no time to review the evidence and would prejudice their case.
Judge Kelly agreed, striking out both applications. He said while he believed Sgt Paulin’s timing of the filing of the evidence was not intended to be prejudicial, it amounted to an abuse of the authority’s process.
Sgt Paulin could not be contacted for comment yesterday.
An earlier strikeout appeal against the enforcement application was not granted.
As a regulatory agency, the police are able to apply for a variation, suspension or cancellation of a licence.
The Dunedin district licensing committee granted a renewal of the bar’s onlicence in April.
At the hearing on the application in October, Sgt Paulin presented a list of instances where he alleged the bar had acted irresponsibly.
The list included serving intoxicated gang members, overloading its venue and inadequate security levels on busy nights.
Mainland Hospitality director James Arnott told the committee he thought most of the accusations were inaccurate and said the police’s handling of the issues was not done in a collaborative manner.
Mr Arnott could not be contacted yesterday.
Hospitality New Zealand lawyer Sianatu Lotoaso said the case highlighted the right respondents had to know what allegations were being directed at them.