Disabled car crash victim refused service at Countdown supermarkets because he looked drunk

Grant Pratt was refused service at two different Countdown supermarkets in New Plymouth. Photo / File

A man with brain damage he suffered from a car accident was turned away from buying beer at two supermarkets because staff thought he was drunk.

Grant Pratt was hit by a car in 1994 and suffered a traumatic brain injury that affects his balance, how he walks and causes him to slur his speech, disabilities that cause him immense frustration as people often assume he’s intoxicated.

However, after being refused service twice at two different Countdown supermarkets he decided enough was enough and took the matter to the Human Rights Commission on the basis of unlawful discrimination of his disability.

The matter was then referred up to the country’s highest human rights jurisdiction, the Human Rights Review Tribunal, where he was hoping to highlight what he considered to be unfair treatment of himself and others with similar disabilities.

In a recently released ruling from the tribunal, Pratt makes no mention of seeking compensation from the retailer.

However, the tribunal dismissed his claim because supermarket staff at two different locations on two different dates thought he was drunk, and played it by the book when it came to their obligations under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

In October 2019 Pratt attempted to buy a dozen beers at Countdown Spotswood in New Plymouth but was refused service, then staff refused to sell the same box to his mother who was also shopping in the same store.

Then a few months later at a different Countdown in the same town, Pratt was also denied by supermarket staff as he attempted to buy beer.

Pratt wasn’t drunk, but he also didn’t tell staff about his brain injury, which causes him issues in communicating.

While Pratt made a complaint in 2019 after the first incident, his case wasn’t heard by the tribunal until February 2023. It has been plagued by a backlog of cases in recent years with an average disposal time of two years from complaint through to resolution, though it isn’t unusual for people, like Pratt, to wait four years.

Supermarket refusal

Staff at both supermarkets use what’s known as the Scab tool to identify possibly intoxicated people; speech, coordination, appearance and behaviour.

Identifying potentially intoxicated people and refusing to sell them alcohol is a requirement of any retailer licensed to sell alcohol in New Zealand, and they’re meant to play it safe.

Countdown’s lawyers argued that its staff did not discriminate against Pratt in the same way they don’t discriminate against under-18-year-olds by refusing to sell them alcohol. The law restricts the sale of alcohol by age, the same as it does for those who appear intoxicated.

While Pratt didn’t tell staff at the first supermarket he had a disability, his mother arrived at the till and explained the situation.

However, the checkout operator said that Pratt had been aggressive by slamming the box of beer down on the counter and then becoming more aggressive when he was refused service.

Pratt tried twice to purchase a box of beer from one supermarket. Photo / Emma Geraghty

Pratt’s mother told the tribunal that although there were previous occasions of her son being refused the sale of alcohol, this was the first she witnessed. She described the experience as extremely humiliating.

One of Pratt’s doctors told the tribunal that aggression was not a feature of his disability, but for balance reasons he stands with both legs and arms wide, which makes him appear bigger. The doctor also noted that Pratt tended to stand closer than normal, talk louder and maintain increased eye contact which could give him the appearance of being aggressive.

Ultimately, it was because of this implied aggression that Pratt was denied service and the tribunal found it was “the prudent approach” by the supermarket to have refused him sale.

At the second supermarket, also Countdown, several months later, Pratt was again denied service because he was slurring his words and had trouble maintaining balance, though he was not drunk.

He had never had a problem buying alcohol at that supermarket in the 11 months leading up to the incident.

‘An inferior person’

Pratt twice attempted to buy beer before police were called by staff at the store and he was asked to leave. Police explained that he had a disability and the supermarket approved any future sales for him now that they knew about his brain injury.

Still, Pratt says he was embarrassed and felt like he had been treated as an inferior person.

At the hearing in 2023 Pratt said that he disagreed with the statutory definition of intoxication because his disability always affects his appearance, behaviour, coordination and speech.

He said that while he is not always intoxicated, he is always disabled and the definition indirectly discriminates against him.

In a ruling released this week, the tribunal dismissed Pratt’s claim on the basis that “refusing to sell alcohol on the basis of behaviours leading to a conclusion a person is intoxicated is not discrimination on the basis of a disability”.

The tribunal found that in a hypothetical scenario where someone who was neither disabled nor intoxicated but was slurring and off-balance and tried to buy beer; they would likely be refused service as well “because in the absence of an alternative explanation they would likely be considered to be intoxicated”.

In its ruling, the tribunal said that because Pratt did not explain that he was disabled, staff understandably assumed he was drunk and refused to sell him alcohol.

Pratt’s claim that he was discriminated against because of his disability was dismissed by the tribunal.

General Distributors, which owns Woolworths – formerly Countdown – did not respond to a request for comment.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.