A rural Auckland tavern where a three-year-old child was allegedly "assaulted" by a patron will continue serving alcohol after being granted an on-licence renewal.
By Torika Tokalau of Local Democracy Reporting
Huapai Tavern faced the Auckland District Licensing Committee (DLC) last month but faced opposition from lone objector, Blair Shaw, who gave evidence of how his grandson was allegedly "assaulted".
Shaw claimed the confrontation was “completely unprovoked” and while he didn’t oppose the on-licence renewal, he called on the DLC to ensure improved safety policies for all customers.
Shaw claimed Maurice Hall had come up to their table, struck his grandson, and told his wife to “control your kid” while they were at the tavern for dinner in 2024.
CCTV footage of the incident showed a patron standing two tables over, walking across to Shaw's group, and making contact with a child's bottom.
The patron later picked up a spoon from the floor and handed it to the group before walking back to his table.
A few minutes later, Shaw claimed another patron attempted to assault him, and his family was subjected to verbal abuse from others.
He said staff didn't call police, and he had to do it himself.
In a decision released on April 29, DLC chair Michael Goudie stated they were satisfied with the suitability of the tavern.
DLC noted that the reporting agencies - police, medical officer and the alcohol licensing inspector - did not oppose the application.
There was also no evidence of ongoing compliance issues that would weigh against renewal.
“The objection in this case arises from a specific incident involving a young child.
“The committee acknowledges that this is a sensitive matter and one that is understandably of significant concern to the objector and his family.”
Goudie stated their role as a committee was not to determine criminal liability, but the suitability of tavern to hold a licence and its operation, consistent with the object of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.
He said the committee accepted Shaw’s characterisation of the alleged incident as a “violent assault”, however they did not share the same view.
DLC focused on whether the alleged incident revealed any failure in the tavern’s operation, specifically whether there were indicators of intoxication that required intervention.
“While the objector expressed the view that the patron had been drinking, the evidence of trained staff who observed the patron directly was that he was not intoxicated and did not display signs requiring intervention under the Act.”
The committee also considered whether the incident reflected a failure by the tavern to appropriately manage patrons.
“The consistent evidence of the applicant’s witnesses was that there were no observable indicators prior to the incident that would have prompted intervention.
“The committee accepts that staff were not aware of any issue until it was brought to their attention.”
Goudie added they were were satisfied that, once made aware of what had happened, staff took appropriate steps to address it.
“The committee accepts that the incident was distressing for the objector and his family. However, the committee must determine whether the incident demonstrates any ongoing concern relevant to the statutory criteria.
“Having regard to all of the evidence, the committee is not satisfied that it does.”
The Huapai Tavern did not want to comment when approached by LDR.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
SHARE ME