Barmen Found Not Guilty of Manslaughter

daddydick · 12-05-2011 06:39PM

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 · 12-05-2011 06:39PM

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 · 12-05-2011 06:40PM

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? · 12-05-2011 06:44PM

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 · 12-05-2011 06:45PM

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 · 12-05-2011 06:50PM

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

For Forks Sake · 12-05-2011 06:50PM

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 · 12-05-2011 06:51PM

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 · 12-05-2011 06:51PM

Chinasea wrote: »

...he lost the run of himself.

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

murrayp4 · 12-05-2011 06:56PM

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 · 12-05-2011 06:56PM

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? · 12-05-2011 06:58PM

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? · 12-05-2011 07:03PM

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 · 12-05-2011 07:06PM

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 · 12-05-2011 07:07PM

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 · 12-05-2011 07:14PM

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? · 12-05-2011 07:18PM

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 · 12-05-2011 07:18PM

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? · 12-05-2011 07:24PM

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 · 12-05-2011 07:31PM

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.

whydoibother? · 12-05-2011 07:33PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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 gown 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.

The legislation seems completely pointless if there was never going to be any other outcome.

You can't prove causation with éclairs and heart attacks.

Ickle Magoo · 12-05-2011 07:35PM

In this case you could just as easily say the causation was crap friends assuming responsibility and removing the man from the bar while actually just shoving him in a function room, on his back, so they could carry on the party...

nathansredarmy · 12-05-2011 07:37PM

barmen were not in wrong at all was just a unfortunate event

whydoibother? · 12-05-2011 07:39PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In this case you could just as easily say the causation was crap friends assuming responsibility and removing the man from the bar while actually just shoving him in a function room, on his back, so they could carry on the party...

By all means go after them too if there's a case there. There might be something in the fact that they removed him from the care of others. Doesn't make the barstaff less culpable.

Ickle Magoo · 12-05-2011 07:44PM

I don't think bar staff should be culpable at all - any more than a newsagent who sells cigarettes or an off-licence that sells a bottle of vodka. Unless the bar staff stood there with a funnel and held the guy down then there is only one person responsible for that level of alcohol being in his system.

Liam Byrne · 12-05-2011 07:52PM

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.

It would be their own choice to get into this ridiculous state.

Far too many people have zero cop-on when it comes to drinking, and if it gets to the point that you can't make a basic common-sense decision, you should stop drinking and go home.

If you have to hire a nanny to make sure you're safe, then do so, but something tells me most people wouldn't listen to them anyway.

StupidLikeAFox · 12-05-2011 07:59PM

Also, the guys he was drinking with bought him 2 shots each of different spirits, the barmen assumed they were going to share the "cocktail".

Also it was the guy who died that said "I bet I could down half a pint of spirits quicker than you could a half pint of beer". Its a tragedy, and the guy paid the ultimate price, but its still his fault

Rented Mule · 12-05-2011 08:01PM

TheZohan wrote: »

Justice was....served.

Well played sir ....well played !!

prinz · 12-05-2011 08:27PM

Fair enough ruling I suppose, inportant to note the judge accepted the men breached their duty of care and were negligent.. Hopefully more barstaff will heed the warning and face up to their responsibilities from now on.

whydoibother? · 12-05-2011 09:12PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It would be their own choice to get into this ridiculous state.

Far too many people have zero cop-on when it comes to drinking, and if it gets to the point that you can't make a basic common-sense decision, you should stop drinking and go home.

If you have to hire a nanny to make sure you're safe, then do so, but something tells me most people wouldn't listen to them anyway.

I fully accept that far too many people have zero cop-on when it comes to drinking. But bars take full advantage of this. They should share the responsibility. It's the drinks industry that have created their extremely vulnerable state so bars shouldn't be allowed to use that as an excuse.

Barmen Found Not Guilty of Manslaughter

Comments