Police opposed the renewal of Caversham Liquor’s off-licence over Speight’s-branded signage it argued did not comply with a judge’s order to change its external advertising.
Ahead of a hearing last month, the store’s owner accused police of intimidation and bullying, and now Dunedin’s district licensing committee has criticised the approach of police, the licensing inspector and Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora leading up to and during the process.
In its decision, committee secretary Kevin Mechen said the store stated in the past there had always been a meeting with the three agencies to discuss the renewal of its licence and to cover any areas of concern.
‘‘On this occasion, there was no meeting and the first the applicant knew of the opposition was when the police report was forwarded to them.’’
The store also stated no concerns were raised about the Speight’s signage when the agencies earlier visited the premises, Mr Mechen said.
‘‘The committee is critical of the lack of engagement between the reporting agencies and the applicant leading up to and including this renewal process.
‘‘This will be addressed in another forum.’’
The committee decided to renew the licence for another two and a-half years — but required it to remove or replace the Speight’s signage.
Caversham Liquor owner Brenda Yee said she felt ‘‘a profound sense of relief and vindication’’ that the licence was renewed.
However, a hearing should have been a last resort, she said.
‘‘I believe that we haven't done anything wrong.’’
Her husband Brendan Yee said a hearing could have been avoided if there had been proper engagement.
‘‘It's a waste of our time, it's a waste of the police's time.
‘‘We're sure the police have better things to do.’’
Caversham Liquor has had its off-licence renewal opposed twice by police since May 2023.
At last month’s hearing, police argued the store had not complied with a direction from the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (Arla) because of the retention of its Speight’s signage.
But Mrs Yee believed the store had followed Arla’s direction — the Speight’s signage had been in place for more than 23 years and was part of the ‘‘heritage identity of the business’’.
Mr Mechen said there were no suitability issues with the applicant nor with the way the store was run ‘‘other than the retention of the Speight’s signs’’.
‘‘The committee finds the two signs to be non-compliant with the direction of the authority.’’
It gave the store until today to remove the sign on the street frontage and until August to remove the sign on the roof.
Mr Yee said they accepted the committee’s decision and would change the signage to comply.
But Mrs Yee said she was ‘‘a bit angry’’ because a lot of customers were in favour of keeping the Speight’s signage.
The agencies either declined, did not respond or said they could not respond to a request for comment before deadline.
