Barmen Found Not Guilty of Manslaughter

Spunge · 12-05-2011 09:23PM

It's probably a good thing this went to court to outline the dangers of consuming large amounts of alcohol at once, but definitely glad they weren't convicted of anything. It should at least help in buyers and sellers of alcohol being more wary of the dangers, which is nothing but a good thing.

Aoifey! · 12-05-2011 10:41PM

I think the right decision was made. RIP to the man, but it was not the fault if the barmen. Although they may have had some part to play, only the person themselves can know their own limitations.

K-9 · 12-05-2011 11:07PM

Correct ruling in a tough case.

If only A&E's could now absolve responsibility!

Dudess · 12-05-2011 11:53PM

I'm glad they weren't found guilty, that would be a bridge too far IMO. But serving a pint glass of spirits - wtf?! If they thought it was being shared around, why didn't they serve it in separate measures?

Such a sad case though - the poor guy's family and friends...

seamus · 13-05-2011 08:55AM

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.

Nothing to do with grey areas.

The judge ruled that the deceased was the one who made the primary decision which ended his life. In effect, he killed himself. This means that it's impossible to maintain a charge of manslaughter on the two men, because none of their decisions or actions were fundamental in causing this man's death.

Supervening Cause is the legal term.

Show Time · 13-05-2011 09:05AM

Thank God for common sense, Those two poor lads went through enough.

Lustrum · 13-05-2011 09:17AM

And now Alan Shatter reckons he's going to review the penalties for bar staff who serve drunk patrons - how on earth is he planning on making bar staff/patrons more respectful of a law that already exists? Is he planning on sending the Gardaí into every niteclub in the country and arresting the 90% patrons who are already drunk and still drinking, plus the 99% bar staff who are serving them more drink?

As most people have said, until we come to realise and respect our limits ourselves there's a fair chance of a story like this happening again

SeaFields · 13-05-2011 09:54AM

Family to sue hotel

While I sympathise with their loss, I hope they don't win their civil case. Probably in their best interest to just let it lie now.

lastlaugh · 13-05-2011 09:58AM

Lustrum wrote: »

And now Alan Shatter reckons he's going to review the penalties for bar staff who serve drunk patrons - how on earth is he planning on making bar staff/patrons more respectful of a law that already exists? Is he planning on sending the Gardaí into every niteclub in the country and arresting the 90% patrons who are already drunk and still drinking, plus the 99% bar staff who are serving them more drink?

As most people have said, until we come to realise and respect our limits ourselves there's a fair chance of a story like this happening again

By sending out a clear message that if you give someone an obviously dangerous amount of alchohol in the one serving, then you will get into trouble.

whydoibother? · 13-05-2011 10:01AM

I really hope they do win their civil case. I think we have a culture of not holding people to account in Ireland in all walks of life. The number of people who have accepted that the barstaff were wrong but that punishing them is going too far is baffling to me. If someone feels the barstaff weren't wrong to serve and therefore they shouldn't be punished, fine. That's a coherent opinion, albeit one I strongly disagree with. But so many people are saying they were wrong (or implying it by saying barstaff should change their behaviour in the future) but punishment is going too far. I just don't get it.

SeaFields · 13-05-2011 10:07AM

whydoibother? wrote: »

I think we have a culture of not holding people to account in Ireland in all walks of life. The number of people who have accepted that the barstaff were wrong but that punishing them is going too far is baffling to me.

The criminal courts have already established that the barmen were not responsible for the young mans death though.

lastlaugh · 13-05-2011 10:11AM

Show Time wrote: »

Thank God for common sense, Those two poor lads went through enough.

Ahh, the two liddle lads have been through enough. All they did was give the punter what he asked for. Sigh.

Is there some qualification or license you need to get to be a Barman/Bar 'Manager'. While Manslaughter is a bit much, loss of their jobs and/or fines is what those lads need.

whydoibother? · 13-05-2011 10:17AM

SeaFields wrote: »

The criminal courts have already established that the barmen were not responsible for the young mans death though.

Yeah, but there's a different standard of proof in civil and criminal cases, so they could theoretically still win a civil case.

seamus · 13-05-2011 10:28AM

SeaFields wrote: »

The criminal courts have already established that the barmen were not responsible for the young mans death though.

As said, burden of proof is lower in civil cases (balance of probabilities versus beyond a reasonable doubt), but the judge didn't rule out the possibility that the barmen broke the law or were guilty of contributory negligence, simply that they could not be guilty of manslaughter.

If a civil court rules that the men failed in some duty of care towards their patrons, then they could be successfully sued.

Show Time · 13-05-2011 10:39AM

lastlaugh wrote: »

Ahh, the two liddle lads have been through enough. All they did was give the punter what he asked for. Sigh.

Is there some qualification or license you need to get to be a Barman/Bar 'Manager'. While Manslaughter is a bit much, loss of their jobs and/or fines is what those lads need.

No one forced the drink back the his throat so should the bar staff be held accountable for an attempt at showing off which went horribly wrong. There are no winners in this.

Spudmonkey · 13-05-2011 10:43AM

As Jimmy Carr said - "even the gene pool needs a bit of chlorine" :pac:

lastlaugh · 13-05-2011 10:49AM

Show Time wrote: »

No one forced the drink back the his throat so should the bar staff be held accountable for an attempt at showing off which went horribly wrong. There are no winners in this.

I know no one forced the drink down his throat and it was indeed an idiotic thing to do.

My point is that it was also idiotic/grossly negligent to serve him that amount of drink, given the fact that he already had quite a lot of drink taken already.

I agree, there are know winners in this.

People need to know their limits and drink sensibly.
Barstaff also need to act responsible and should not be seen as untouchable or as some sort of dumb-ass's that just hand out whatever they are asked for.

Barmen Found Not Guilty of Manslaughter

Comments