Barmen Found Not Guilty of Manslaughter

Degag

Mods, i presume this is now ok to discuss since the case is over? If not i apologise.

Anyhow, as the title suggests, they've been found not guilty. Personally, as a barman myself, i'm happy with the ruling. The actions of the two men were wrong though in my opinion and i suppose it gives a wake up call to all people in the profession to be alot more vigilant when serving alcohol.

Korvanica

Degag wrote: »

Mods, i presume this is now ok to discuss since the case is over? If not i apologise.

Anyhow, as the title suggests, they've been found not guilty. Personally, as a barman myself, i'm happy with the ruling. The actions of the two men were wrong though in my opinion and i suppose it gives a wake up call to all people in the profession to be alot more vigilant when serving alcohol.

Or, people could learn to know their bloody limits...

TheZohanS

Justice was....served.

Degag

Korvanica wrote: »

Or, people could learn to know their bloody limits...

No doubt about it.

djPSB

True. Perhaps, he shouldn't have served the amount of drink in question, but he didnt force the victim to drink it!!

HeisenbergBB

In fairness the bar tenders can only take a certain amount of responsibility. I dont think I would have served them that drink if i was in that situation but I would have felt alot of sympathy for them had they been found guilty!

Mr Freeze

Good. Definitely happy with the ruling.

Now time for them to return to the work and every second customer taking the pi$$ and asking for 8 shots in a pint glass. I doubt they will be in the humor for that though.

Alter-Ego

Is this about the incident in Hayses Bejaysus in Thurles?

Thread seems a bit ambiguous.

vetstu

Should never have gone to court in the first place. Just shows that Brits can't handle their drink.

immature ejaculation

glad they were found not guilty! anyone know where to find out info about the drinking laws in Ireland especially the legal limits of shots that can be served?

kelle

RIP to the victim, and my condolances to his family and friends. I have every sympathy for them, and they are most likely not happy with the result of this case but I feel that if the barpeople were found guilty of any wrongdoing then it would open floodgates absolving those who have drank excess alcohol of any wrongdoing. For instance, one might get away with drinking and driving - just blame the barpeople!

Wile E. Coyote

Alter-Ego wrote: »

Is this about the incident in Hayses Bejaysus in Thurles?

Thread seems a bit ambiguous.

Was there another case going on where barmen where charged with manslaughter?

EverEvolving

Phew, if they had been found guilty, every bar in the country would be cautious serving alcohol and very soon a night out would be too much effort to prove your sobriety when ordering alcohol.

Not that I agree with the excess of that night but adults should be aware of their limits.

My name is URL

Thank feck that common sense prevailed in this case. They weren't even found not guilty by the jury per se.. the jury was ordered by the judge to find the pair not guilty.

Paul.C

The barmen are not responsible for anything. Glad with the ruling.

If the barmen were guilty then the friends egging him on were twice as bad.
If the chap had been refused then he could have easily ordered 8 shots making out they were a round for the table and pour them into a pint glass.

Back to the "responsible" The chap was responsible for himself

DazMarz

Delighted. The fool who drank himself to death was responsible. Nobody else. His friends perhaps moreso than the barstaff. Surely his friends could have told him to stop? Why should the barstaff be held accountable for some eejit who felt it necessary to down a pint of spirits? Their job is to serve the customer, not to be his guardian angel and offer advice to him on how much to drink. Their lives and names have been dragged through the tabloid mud by that clown and I hope that this is the last we hear of it and that there are no appeals and whatnot. Good riddance.

Degag

immature ejaculation wrote: »

glad they were found not guilty! anyone know where to find out info about the drinking laws in Ireland especially the legal limits of shots that can be served?

I don't think there is any. I know that in college barmen areadvised not to serve more than doubles, but it's just a recommendation not a rule afaik.

seamus

As the judge quite rightly pointed out, the barmen provided the alcohol and it was a monumentally stupid thing to do, but they didn't pick up the glass and pour it down his throat.

The deceased's decision to drink the cocktail was the pivotal point in causing his own death, which means that the barmen cannot be guilty of manslaughter. This was the basis on which the judge directed the jury to find them not guilty.

Proper outcome, I reckon.

msdemena

The barmen were rightly cleared in this case, I know of a couple of cases around here, one a good few years ago when a man left a pub and fell over and broke his leg, he tried to sue the publican in question but he got nowhere with it and there was a case this year I think where the family of a man who left the pub and had a crash killing himself and others tried to sue, again they had no joy either.
I don't no the correct wording of the law but it is an offence to serve anyone who is noticeably drunk.

Mal-Adjusted

TheZohan wrote: »

Justice was....served.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR3jnW2kcUs
sorry, won't embed >:(

Liam Byrne

At least the guy in question was only a danger to himself, unlike most of the home-grown idiots that ruin a night out for everyone else in the vicinity by trying to be "macho".

Barmen DO have a duty of care to patrons, and far too often ignore it and still serve drunk people.....they should be prosecuted for this.

However he drank a ridiculous amount in a single drink....that's his stupidity (and Darwinism at work).....if someone asked for a 50-ounce steak and then proceeded to have a heart attack because they didn't have the cop-on to stop eating it halfway through when they were full, then it would hardly be the chef/waiter's fault.

What I'd like to see is for this case to make the average Irish person cop themselves on, but given some of the posts that were around earlier claiming "lightweight" and such, I don't hold out much hope for that.

suicide_circus

A rare sensible ruling from the Irish judiciary!

Mint Sauce

It would have caused a huge precident if they were found guilty. People whould have been trying to sue bars and probably even offies following even the most minor of drink related incidents.

The barman covered his arse by asking his manager if they could serve the drink, and the drink was allowed on the understanding that it was not going to be consumed in the fashion that it was.

QuinnC88

Should of never went to court, stupid decision to give the man that much spirit, but what a clown he was to down it off!

Degag

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Barmen DO have a duty of care to patrons, and far too often ignore it and still serve drunk people.....they should be prosecuted for this.

I disagree with this. Unless the person is an obvious danger to himself and others, he should be served away. I've no bother going out and getting pissed and having a few more than i should like 99% of other people. I can still walk out the door on my own accord, call a taxi, open the door and fall into bed. Point is most people are grand when drunk.

Sunnyisland

The right verdict, But some sort of guidelines need to be brought in and enforced.

Chinasea

I think it is very sad and it was totally WRONG for the bar men to serve up such a cocktail.

I suspect that there was a bit of we'll show this silly English lad a lesson, and perhaps he might have been naively showing off to his mates (??), when in fact the poor naive fella was just caught up in the whole deal of being in Ireland and lashing into the Guinness and the Drink that we so pride ourselves on, and unfortunately he lost the run of himself.

chimpo85

When did this happen? Im living in UK and havent heard about it.

Ive worked in bars for years back home and by the sounds of things its a good result.

As a barman you cant completely ignore your patrons, obviously you'll not serve someone who is falling around and an annoyance but I have and always will keep an eye on people who are going way overboard. I wont tell them to stop drinking but I'll stop serving them if I think its going to lead to something negative.

In this case it seems the lad drank way too much. If you're old enough to drink, you're old enough to know the effects of alcohol poisoning and downing too much of something all in one go.

I live in Newcastle at the moment. I know the measures are smaller but you can buy 3 treble vodkas and red bull for £5 here... some of the states that people get themselves into are just ridiculous...that and 16yrs could get served here....disaster waiting to happen in my opinion...

whydoibother?

I think it's a very disappointing decision for two reasons.

Firstly, a person who has been drinking a lot already isn't in a position to assess whether they can have more or not. The barman, as the sober one, is.

Secondly, the bar have an incentive to sell more alcohol. This should be tempered by putting more responsibility on them.

Incidentally, I don't buy for a second that the barman thought it would be shared. Anytime I've shared anything with anyone, we've asked for additional straws, forks, plates, whatever. Why on earth would anyone ask for that many shots in a single pint glass to share. You'd ask for less shots in more glasses, if you were planning on dividing them between people.

slavetothegrind

Degag wrote: »

I disagree with this. Unless the person is an obvious danger to himself and others, he should be served away. I've no bother going out and getting pissed and having a few more than i should like 99% of other people. I can still walk out the door on my own accord, call a taxi, open the door and fall into bed. Point is most people are grand when drunk.

i think he means drunk as in too drunk, barely standing not capable of minding himself drunk.
not happy drunk still hold a conversation drunk.

the only good that may come out of the sadness of the death of that chap is an awareness on both sides of the bar of the danger associated with rediculous overindulgence in spirits.

glad the lads weren't convicted of manslaughter, professional negligence maybe but not manslaughter.

OhMeOhMy

I think every bar is going to be more cautious anyway. The case was the first in Ireland under new legislation. The judge directed the jury to find the men not guilty. I think he was trying to send a message that this **** is now being taken seriously, but the judge could see that the men may not have been fully aware of the implications under law of their actions

daddydick

I wonder how did this even get before the court?

I mean how guilty were the barmen compared to the friends of the deceased who were egging him on. Surely they are more to blame than the bar staff and have more questions to answer?

In saying that my sincerest condolences go to the family of the deceased and it must be hard for his friends also who have to love with this.

gerrycollins

whydoibother? wrote: »

I think it's a very disappointing decision for two reasons.

Firstly, a person who has been drinking a lot already isn't in a position to assess whether they can have more or not. The barman, as the sober one, is.

Secondly, the bar have an incentive to sell more alcohol. This should be tempered by putting more responsibility on them.

Incidentally, I don't buy for a second that the barman thought it would be shared. Anytime I've shared anything with anyone, we've asked for additional straws, forks, plates, whatever. Why on earth would anyone ask for that many shots in a single pint glass to share. You'd ask for less shots in more glasses, if you were planning on dividing them between people.

I think the judge directed the jury to reach a not guilty verdict because there is such a grey area surround the case and that any guilty verdict would not be sound.

They we're not found not guilty because they were genuinely found not guilty based on the evidence produce by their defence or a bad case put forward by the DPP

superelliptic

kelle wrote: »

RIP to the victim, and my condolances to his family and friends. I have every sympathy for them, and they are most likely not happy with the result of this case but I feel that if the barpeople were found guilty of any wrongdoing then it would open floodgates absolving those who have drank excess alcohol of any wrongdoing. For instance, one might get away with drinking and driving - just blame the barpeople!

It would be alot worse than that, even. If the familys case had won, then every time some drunk starts a fight, rapes someone, nicks anything, commits public order offences, or does anything at all illigal, anything - then it would go straight back to the staff who served him.

Absolving people of their individual responsability's would be utter madness - not unlike leaving the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

whydoibother?

gerrycollins wrote: »

I think the judge directed the jury to reach a not guilty verdict because there is such a grey area surround the case and that any guilty verdict would not be sound.

They we're not found not guilty because they were genuinely found not guilty based on the evidence produce by their defence or a bad case put forward by the DPP

What was the grey area? Do you mean in relation to the facts?

sock puppet

Chinasea wrote: »

I suspect that there was a bit of we'll show this silly English lad a lesson, and perhaps he might have been naively showing off to his mates (??), when in fact the poor naive fella was just caught up in the whole deal of being in Ireland and lashing into the Guinness and the Drink that we so pride ourselves on, and unfortunately he lost the run of himself.

Eh English people aren't all pioneers you know. I've never met a single English person who's felt more "pressure" to drink while around Irish. Other nationalities binge drink too.

elefant

Any chance the family will take a civil case against the bar staff?

For Forks Sake

Chinasea wrote: »

I think it is very sad and it was totally WRONG for the bar men to serve up such a cocktail.

I suspect that there was a bit of we'll show this silly English lad a lesson, and perhaps he might have been naively showing off to his mates (??), when in fact the poor naive fella was just caught up in the whole deal of being in Ireland and lashing into the Guinness and the Drink that we so pride ourselves on, and unfortunately he lost the run of himself.

Evidence was given in the case that his english mates were pouring shots of vodka into his pints over the course of the evening in question

For Forks Sake

realies wrote: »

The right verdict, But some sort of guidelines need to be brought in and enforced.

More guidelines, just what we need :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

Chinasea wrote: »

...he lost the run of himself.

^^^ Exactly why the judge directed the jury as he did...

murrayp4

Chinasea wrote: »

I suspect that there was a bit of we'll show this silly English lad a lesson, and perhaps he might have been naively showing off to his mates (??), when in fact the poor naive fella was just caught up in the whole deal of being in Ireland and lashing into the Guinness and the Drink that we so pride ourselves on, and unfortunately he lost the run of himself.

It was stated by his friends during the trial that the deceased had a history of playing out these party tricks to impress his friends.....so I don't think it was a case of dutch courage just because he was in Ireland. More like a bad case of bravado that had been acted out before but on this occasion it ended tragically.

Cat Melodeon

Chinasea wrote: »

I suspect that there was a bit of we'll show this silly English lad a lesson, and perhaps he might have been naively showing off to his mates (??), when in fact the poor naive fella was just caught up in the whole deal of being in Ireland and lashing into the Guinness and the Drink that we so pride ourselves on, and unfortunately he lost the run of himself.

He was drinking with 3 or 4 other lads from the UK. They didn't know each other well, they were contractors who'd arrived in Thurles that day to do engineering work in a local factory. It was the deceased's birthday and a few drinks after work turned into drinking games that the deceased clearly lost. He was a 26 year old father of two, hardly some fresh-faced innocent overwhelmed by the madness of being in...Thurles.

whydoibother? wrote: »

I think it's a very disappointing decision for two reasons.

Firstly, a person who has been drinking a lot already isn't in a position to assess whether they can have more or not. The barman, as the sober one, is.

As the judge said, drunkenness is no defence against any crime. The deceased did not commit a crime, but neither should his drunkenness be the reason for others to be found guilty. They did not force him to drink the alcohol, no one did. He was bragging about his 'party trick' of being able to drink a pint of spirits faster than anyone else could drink a beer, and it killed him.

whydoibother? wrote: »

Secondly, the bar have an incentive to sell more alcohol. This should be tempered by putting more responsibility on them.

I do agree with this. In some other countries (eg Germany), you have to have a licence (a bit like a safe pass) to work in the food & drinks industry, as mistakes can lead to food poisoning or incidents like this one. I don't see why such licences couldn't be introduced here - a week-long introductory course should be enough to inform people of the basic legislation & regulations and raise awareness that you ARE at risk of prosecution if you break the rules. As it is, anyone can work in a bar, zero training is required.

whydoibother?

What on earth is the point of having legislation aimed at making bars take responsibility for the alcohol they serve, if a persons decision to drink it transfers the responsibility back to the drinker.

In what circumstance do you go into a bar, order and get served an irresponsible amount of alcohol and simply look at it?

whydoibother?

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

As the judge said, drunkenness is no defence against any crime. The deceased did not commit a crime, but neither should his drunkenness be the reason for others to be found guilty. They did not force him to drink the alcohol, no one did. He was bragging about his 'party trick' of being able to drink a pint of spirits faster than anyone else could drink a beer, and it killed him.

Drunkenness wouldn't be a defense to a person's own crimes of course. If he goes out and has a fight while drunk, by all means prosecute him. There is no difficulty between this and making the bar responsible for their actions of serving someone who was intoxicated already or serving him a dangerous amount. I think as a matter of policy, in this area, we should put more emphasis on the person who is sober.

kelle

superelliptic wrote: »

It would be alot worse than that, even. If the familys case had won, then every time some drunk starts a fight, rapes someone, nicks anything, commits public order offences, or does anything at all illigal, anything - then it would go straight back to the staff who served him.

Absolving people of their individual responsability's would be utter madness - not unlike leaving the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

Actually it reminds me of this case from 2005.

Bar staff don't really come into question here, but if this guy had been found guilty of rape because drunken consent is no consent - then drunk people of the future would feel free to commit any crime they liked and get away with it on the grounds that they were intoxicated!

*though I do believe he was wrong to do what he did!

Cat Melodeon

whydoibother? wrote: »

What on earth is the point of having legislation aimed at making bars take responsibility for the alcohol they serve, if a persons decision to drink it transfers the responsibility back to the drinker.

In what circumstance do you go into a bar, order and get served an irresponsible amount of alcohol and simply look at it?

If you order an irresponsible amount of alcohol, you are being irresponsible. If you transfer all responsibility on to the barstaff, you will have to do away with rounds or being able to serve a person more than one drink an hour. different people react to alcohol in different ways. How are the barstaff to judge? How could you enforce a system where the person serving the alcohol is responsible? Would it extend to supermarkets and offies? Should they only be allowed to sell single measures of alcohol to people in case they are stupid enough to drink their 6-pack or bottle of vodka or whatever all in one go? People must take responsibility for themselves. Educating and regulating barstaff can only contribute to greater awareness of excessive alcohol consumption, but sensible consumption itself is the responsibility of the individual.

Ickle Magoo

whydoibother? wrote: »

What on earth is the point of having legislation aimed at making bars take responsibility for the alcohol they serve, if a persons decision to drink it transfers the responsibility back to the drinker.

In what circumstance do you go into a bar, order and get served an irresponsible amount of alcohol and simply look at it?

You must see the alternative is completely unworkable...

"No sir, I can't serve you 10 pints, you may decide to drink them one after the other and do yourself some serious harm..."

"No madam, I can't sell you two bottles of wine, you may knock the lot back in a oner and get me into some serious trouble..."

As the law stands, serving someone who is clearly intoxicated is illegal - as bar staff change shift, come onto shift, serve groups and occasionally have weird orders from those who want to drink weird sh!t, it would be an impossibility to make bar staff responsible for their patron's irresponsible drinking - unless you also give them the power to breathalyse everyone ordering...

whydoibother?

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

If you order an irresponsible amount of alcohol, you are being irresponsible. If you transfer all responsibility on to the barstaff, you will have to do away with rounds or being able to serve a person more than one drink an hour. different people react to alcohol in different ways. How are the barstaff to judge? How could you enforce a system where the person serving the alcohol is responsible? Would it extend to supermarkets and offies? Should they only be allowed to sell single measures of alcohol to people in case they are stupid enough to drink their 6-pack or bottle of vodka or whatever all in one go? People must take responsibility for themselves. Educating and regulating barstaff can only contribute to greater awareness of excessive alcohol consumption, but sensible consumption itself is the responsibility of the individual.

Nobody said anything about transferring all the responsibility onto the barstaff. There seems to be a feeling in this thread that if you hold barstaff accountable, it means the customer gets off. No it doesn't. He can still be prosecuted for anything he does.

In relation to the idea that if a person is served an irresponsible amount of alcohol they are being irresponsible, the reason they are being irresponsible often is because they have been served so much already that they are not in a position to judge. They think they can "conquer the world". The alcohol industry, after profiting, from this earlier drinking should not now be allowed to conveniently ignore the fact that the person is more vulnerable. The supermarkets and offie e.g.'s of course are outside those people's control to a larger extent, but where barstaff are watching what is going on and in control of their premises, there is no excuse for them. You wouldn't have to do away with rounds. There was no round here. It was 10 shots in a pint glass.

HRH_The_Queen

OhMeOhMy wrote: »

I think every bar is going to be more cautious anyway. The case was the first in Ireland under new legislation. The judge directed the jury to find the men not guilty. I think he was trying to send a message that this **** is now being taken seriously, but the judge could see that the men may not have been fully aware of the implications under law of their actions

I agree - this is good legislation, and a good outcome. It was right that the men were brought to court, and it is right that they were found not guilty. Bar workers who encourage punters to drink excessively have received a warning.

whydoibother?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You must see the alternative is completely unworkable...

"No sir, I can't serve you 10 pints, you may decide to drink them one after the other and do yourself some serious harm..."

"No madam, I can't sell you two bottles of wine, you may knock the lot back in a oner and get me into some serious trouble..."

As the law stands, serving someone who is clearly intoxicated is illegal - as bar staff change shift, come onto shift, serve groups and occasionally have weird orders from those who want to drink weird sh!t, it would be an impossibility to make bar staff responsible for their patron's irresponsible drinking - unless you also give them the power to breathalyse everyone ordering...

Barstaff should have the power to stop people drinking 10 pints if they have bought them under the guise of a round. But even in that circumstance it genuinely is a case of the barstaff doing their best and the customer being sly. That's not what happened here. Again, 10 shots in a pint glass.

Barstaff who come on shift will know if a person is very intoxicated. If it's such an issue, rearrange shifts to keep the same staff for the later part of the night.

Ickle Magoo

You are talking about a legal case setting precedent...there was never, ever going to be any other outcome. There are just too many variables at play for bar staff to be held responsible for their patrons irresponsible decisions...what next? Pastry chef up for manslaughter for selling obese man who later has heart attack, 10 éclairs! :pac:

It's high time grown adults acted like it and took responsibility for their own actions - whether that be to challenge their mates to a "down the shots" game or making the decision to get p!issed in the first place.