The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Waxy O’Connors Limited over its conviction for permitting alcohol to be supplied to a person under 18 at its Cork premises. The Court affirmed the High Court order dismissing the company’s judicial review application.
The conviction arose from an incident on 22 April 2006 at Waxy’s Bar, 2 Marlboro Street, Cork. The company was fined €1,500, the statutory maximum then applicable, and the District Court ordered the premises temporarily closed for 11 days.
The case concerned the defence available under section 31 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988, as amended in 2000. The Supreme Court held that the amendment made production of an age card to the staff member who supplied the alcohol the sole statutory defence. The earlier defence based on other reasonable grounds for believing a person was over 18 was removed for this offence.
Waxy O’Connors argued that the law should also allow a due diligence defence, as it did for a separate charge concerning a young person’s presence in a bar after 9pm. The company had been acquitted of that second charge. It also argued that, without a broader defence, the alcohol-sale offence violated the constitutional right to a trial in due course of law.
Writing for the Court, Mr Justice John MacMenamin described the offence as one of strict liability in a regulatory, public-welfare context. He held that the limited defence did not make the offence one of absolute liability: it left room for evidence that an age card had been issued in error, obtained by deception or forged. The Court concluded that the legislature could define due diligence in this way and that the defence remained clear and meaningful.
The judgment noted that the company’s District Court evidence concerned efforts to prevent underage people entering the premises; it did not address whether the barman had asked for an age card or exercised diligence in checking the customer’s age. The Supreme Court said this raised a possible question about the company’s standing to bring its constitutional challenge, but chose to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Court also held that the 11-day closure order was distinct from the fine and did not change the regulatory character of the offence. It affirmed the High Court order and dismissed the appeal.