JURISDICTION: Application for Review of a decision of the Commissioner

HEARING DATE: Written submissions 11 April 2025

Application for review - Applicant had sought approval as a responsible person - The police opposed approval in light of the applicant's offending history - This concerned a serious assault charge about thirty years ago and a more recent finding of guilt without conviction of assault in 2019 - A delegate of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner invited the applicant to make submissions - The applicant responded but sent the submissions to the wrong email address and the delegate proceeded on that basis that no submissions were advanced - The delegate upheld the objection lodged by police and refused the application for approval. - On review the submissions were accepted as fresh evidence - The submissions include impressive references from persons who are of themselves self‑evidently of good character - Held that although the public would rightly have concerns about the applicant's fitness and propriety, having regard to the impressive references, that concern would be allayed by the grant of an interim approval over an extended period - Held that the Application for review is allowed and in lieu of the rejection of the applicant's application the applicant is granted interim approval for a period of two years with the police having liberty to apply - Liquor Licensing Act 1997.

1. This is an application for review made by the applicant, Anthony Mark Farrugia, in connection with a decision by the delegate of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner (the delegate) to refuse an application for approval as a responsible person for the purposes of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997.
2. The delegate granted Mr Farrugia interim approval on 12 March 2024 for a period of 6 months. In connection with this, the Commissioner of Police (the Police Commissioner) intervened, contending that the application be refused on account of Mr Farrugia's criminal history, which included the offences of aggravated assault against a child or spouse and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
3. The Police Commissioner contended that in light of these offence there was a serious question as to Mr Farrugia's reputation, honesty and integrity and that his application for approval under the Act should have been refused.
4. The delegate considered this and on the understanding that Mr Farrugia had not placed any submissions challenging or putting a different light on what the Police Commissioner was contending, the delegate refused the application for approval. The delegate thought that there needed to be greater distance between the offending and the application and more evidence in support of Mr Farrugia's reformed character.
5. As it transpired Mr Farrugia had prepared submissions for the delegate's consideration. Unfortunately they were sent to the wrong email address, which is why the delegate never received them.
6. In the circumstances I am prepared to receive the submissions in dealing with this application for review.
7. Mr Farrugia's submissions include various character references. All are very impressive. One spoke of him being "an honest and generous person with a sound business and relationship understanding". Another spoke of him as being "calm and professional" in his interactions with customers. Yet another spoke of him having "earned the respect and trust of both staff, customers, suppliers and management through his unwavering commitment to excellence and his ability to handle responsibilities with the utmost reliability".
8. All of the referees are persons who are themselves self-evidently of good character and in positions to make considered assessments of Mr Farrugia's character.
9. I now turn to consider Mr Farrugia's offending history.
10. Mr Farrugia's was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, occurred in 1995. For this he received a suspended sentence of 6 months' imprisonment.
11. In 2019 he was found guilty without conviction of aggravated assault without a weapon against a child or spouse.
12. Mr Farrugia has had no further legal issues since 2019.
13. The 1995 offending was plainly serious. This Court is permitted to know that sentence of imprisonment, albeit suspended, reflects serious criminal conduct. But it is significant that it occurred 30 years ago.
14. The 2019 offending was plainly of a much less serious nature.
15. In my opinion, whilst the public would be rightfully concerned about Mr Farrugia's fitness and propriety, having regard to the impressive character references, that concern could be allayed by putting him on a short lead by granting him interim approval only for an extended period. I note that this is supported by the Police Commissioner and is not opposed by Mr Farrugia. His willingness to be subjected to this reinforces my confidence that he can be trusted to discharge the duties and responsibilities expected of a responsible person under the Act.
16. I therefore set aside the delegate's refusal of Mr Farrugia's application for approval and substitute it with an approval on an interim basis for two years, with the police having liberty to apply. If there is no application made by the police over that period, the approval will be made on an ongoing basis as the end of the two‑year period.