The High Court ruled that evidence about drink prices in a Kells lounge bar and nightclub did not establish an offence under the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. The case came before the court as a consultative case stated from the District Court, which had asked legal questions; the High Court did not convict or acquit the defendant.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, at the suit of Superintendent Gerry Cadden, prosecuted Barry Callaghan over sales at The Arches, a licensed premises on Farrell Street, Kells. The complaint alleged that he sold alcohol at a reduced price for a limited period on 25 June 2006. Callaghan was the nominee of the licensee, Jacunda Limited, and had run the premises for three or four years.
The premises included a ground-floor lounge bar and a connected basement nightclub called Kactus. The judgment described differences in their layout and facilities, separate alcohol stores and stocktaking, and separately compiled management accounts. Gardaí testified that drinks costing €8.50 for a bottle of Smirnoff Ice and a pint of Budweiser in the lounge cost €5 in the nightclub after midnight. The nightclub displayed a sign stating that all drinks there cost €2.50. Evidence was that those prices stayed the same throughout the nightclub’s opening hours, while lounge prices also remained constant.
Justice O’Neill held that different prices may be charged in distinct parts of licensed premises where their nature, facilities and economic circumstances materially differ. To decide whether a price was reduced for a limited period, the comparison must be with prices in the same part of the premises, not prices elsewhere. A shorter opening period for a distinct part does not by itself amount to a limited period under section 20. The judge said an artificial area created to evade the law would not necessarily qualify; whether a separation is genuine is a matter of evidence.
Because the nightclub’s prices remained constant whenever it was open, the evidence did not establish a reduced price during a limited period. The High Court answered “no” to whether the evidence was sufficient to convict and “no” to whether different prices in distinct parts were prohibited. It answered that the District Court should assess each distinct part separately, and “yes” that an offence can occur before 12.30pm on Sunday.
On that final issue, the court construed “day” in section 20 as the licensing day, from opening to closing, even when closing falls on the next calendar date. A reduced price after midnight compared with a higher price earlier in the same licensing day could therefore fall within the prohibition. The judgment answered the questions of law; it did not record a final District Court disposition of the complaint.