Pub Summons

gmannix1000

Hi lads,

I work in a bar part-time and a garda phoned my boss the other day to tell him there was a summons there for him (that they had called in previously to give it to him) and that he would have to collect it. But also that my name was on it!!

I remember the night about 8/9 months ago, It was a weekend night, I was in charge and the garda came in about an hour after last call and people were still on the premises; however, they didn't take any customer details. Just my own?

Anyone ever been in this situation? Or know what happens next?

MagicSean

You and your boss go to court and try and defend your actions, preferably with the help of a solicitor.

gmannix1000

Generally, how soon will the court case be after the summons has been issued? Is there a need for me to go to court or will it be just the boss that will have to go to court?

MagicSean

Probably about 3 months. If you are summonsed you must attend. It was, after all, you who committed the offence

HeisenbergBB

You hire a good solicitor and get off scott free:

http://www.thejournal.ie/could-two-mayo-publicans-have-exposed-a-gaping-hole-in-irelands-legal-system-184394-Jul2011/

sundodger5

if it was for after hours i wouldnt worry a load of cases in Mayo just got dismissed as the legeslation has not been translated/available in Irish

gmannix1000

I'm sick over the whole thing to be honest... What could happen to me out of it? Obviously the boss will be fined?

Kosseegan

gmannix1000 wrote: »

Hi lads,

I work in a bar part-time and a garda phoned my boss the other day to tell him there was a summons there for him (that they had called in previously to give it to him) and that he would have to collect it. But also that my name was on it!!

This sounds absolutely ridiculous. Summons have to be served. Nobody is obliged to go to a garda station to collect a summons. Only the licence holder can be prosecuted for after hours. Only one persons name appears on a summons. If there are two culprits, each will be summonsed separately.

Reloc8

1. The garda was advising of the existence of the summons. That is quite decent of him as if it is collected one avoids the potentially embarassing scenario of having the gardai to the door some early morning.

2. Where are you getting that only the licence holder can be prosecuted for after hours serving ? Have you read the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988 (that is to say the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1927 as amended by subsequent legislation) ?

Any person serving after hours can be prosecuted for doing so, as can the licence holder for allowing this to happen.

Seriously...where do you get that stuff from ?

OP...check with the garda and see if there is a summons for you. If there is collect it. If there isn't happy days.

In general a person acting 'under orders' in your position is much less culpable than the license-holder/employer for serving late. If you were instructed to serve late go to your employer and ask him/her to cover your representation. If they won't take steps to get your own. You are facing conviction and fine but this can be avoided if handled correctly (the conviction part at least).

gmannix1000

OP...check with the garda and see if there is a summons for you. If there is collect it. If there isn't happy days.

Will do!

In general a person acting 'under orders' in your position is much less culpable than the license-holder/employer for serving late. If you were instructed to serve late go to your employer and ask him/her to cover your representation. If they won't take steps to get your own. You are facing conviction and fine but this can be avoided if handled correctly (the conviction part at least).

The thing is we didn't serve after hours, we're quite strict on that. Customers order like two pints at last call and was drinking them when the guard came in?

coylemj

gmannix1000 wrote: »

The thing is we didn't serve after hours, we're quite strict on that. Customers order like two pints at last call and was drinking them when the guard came in?

You are probably being summonsed for permitting people to be on the premises after hours, it's the poorer relation of actually serving after hours.

If you can show (by giving evidence yourself and calling staff who were working that night as witnesses to back you up) that you did everything in your power to try to clear the premises short of pointing a fire hose at the customers then the judge should deal with you leniently but at the end of the day the boss should hire a solicitor and make sure that he will defend you as well as the boss i.e. the boss should by rights pay for your defence.

Kosseegan

Reloc8 wrote: »

1. The garda was advising of the existence of the summons. That is quite decent of him as if it is collected one avoids the potentially embarassing scenario of having the gardai to the door some early morning.

The guards had already been, so avoiding embarrassment was not their objective. It was just laziness.

Reloc8 wrote: »

2. Where are you getting that only the licence holder can be prosecuted for after hours serving ? Have you read the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988 (that is to say the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1927 as amended by subsequent legislation) ?

Any person serving after hours can be prosecuted for doing so, as can the licence holder for allowing this to happen.

Seriously...where do you get that stuff from ?

1896 1 Q.B 655
COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE
v. CARTMAN


"It is clear that there is no machinery by which the person actually selling can be convicted; a penalty can only be inflicted on the licensee."

Reloc8 wrote: »

OP...check with the garda and see if there is a summons for you. If there is collect it. If there isn't happy days.

coylemj

Kosseegan wrote: »

1896 1 Q.B 655
COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE
v. CARTMAN


"It is clear that there is no machinery by which the person actually selling can be convicted; a penalty can only be inflicted on the licensee."

The liquor licensing legislation now in force dealing with prohibited hours is post 1922 so that judgement has no application in the Republic. There is also now explicit recognition that people behind the counter other than the licensee have responsibilities, viz.....

Section 5 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 specifically creates the offence whereby a non-licensee (i.e. family member or employee) supplies alcohol to a person who is drunk.....

5.—(1) A person (not being a licensee) shall not—

(a) purchase intoxicating liquor for supply to, or consumption by, a drunken person on licensed premises, or
(b) supply intoxicating liquor to a drunken person on any such premises.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence under this section and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding—

(a) for a first offence, €1,500, or
(b) for a second or any subsequent offence, €2,000.

Kosseegan

coylemj wrote: »

The liquor licensing legislation now in force dealing with prohibited hours is post 1922 so that judgement has no application in the Republic. There is also now explicit recognition that employees and family members other than the licensee have responsibilities, viz.....

.

You must be joking! Some of the licensing law in force dates back to the 19th century. The 1902 Act is the cornerstone of the current regime.

coylemj

Kosseegan wrote: »

You must be joking! Some of the licensing law in force dates back to the 19th century. The 1902 Act is the cornerstone of the current regime.

The 1902 act is all about the issuing of new licences, everything to do with the conduct of the premises is post 1922.

Even if the 1902 act is relevant in this case, the 1896 judgement that you quoted can't be applied to subsequent legislation.

And if you say that it can, you'd be asserting that a judgement from more than 100 years ago could be used to strike down an act of the Oireachtas of 2003.

MagicSean

Kosseegan wrote: »

The guards had already been, so avoiding embarrassment was not their objective. It was just laziness.

Yes but would you want them coming back to the pub over and over til they got everyones summons delivered?

Finnbar01

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Yes but would you want them coming back to the pub over and over til they got everyones summons delivered?

But I thought it was up to the garda who was serving the summons to make sure he serves it too the right person or get someone to sign for the summons?

MagicSean

Finnbar01 wrote: »

But I thought it was up to the garda who was serving the summons to make sure he serves it too the right person or get someone to sign for the summons?

I don't see your point.

nuac

See a solicitor.

A conviction is bad news for any publican - too many and you lose your licence.

If a publican or bar employee claims that people would not leave the bar, he is likely to be told that he should have asked Gardai to assist.

WhiteRussian

A. Waste. Of. Resources.