The Gazette 1973

of propriety or efficiency in the conduct of dances in the hall. But they are part of the picture presented of the impact which the holding of dances in this hall at weekends and on the eves of public holidays and on public holidays has had on the lives of people who live in the Clondalkin area. As such they must be deemed relevant considerations," said Mr. Justice Henchy. He said he had no doubt that the sub-section authorised—indeed required—the Circuit Court judge to have regard to evidence tendered as to the effect the grant of a licence had had on the lives of local resi- dents, in their homes, on the streets and, generally speaking, in the pursuit of their lawful occasions. Such evidence was not to be disregarded, since it was the necessary basis for an assessment by the judge of the likely social and environmental consequences of the grant of a fresh licence, and since it would enable him to balance the merits of the applicant's claim to be given the licence against the adverse effect the grant of it would be likely to have on the personal lives and amenities of local residents. Mr. Justice Henchy said it was to be noted, however, that the evidence in question might not be looked at in isolation. The sub-section required the judge to have regard to all relevant matters. Thus, if the evidence were that the mischief complained of could be elimin- ated or substantially alleviated by greater activity on the part of those charged with the maintenance of public order, the judge would be required to give due weight to that factor. But if, after a due appraisal, made in good faith, of all the relevant evidence pre- sented to him, the judge were to grant or refuse the licence, he (Mr. Justice Henchy) did not see how that decision could be challenged as being ultra vires the Act. Mr. Justice Henchy said that although it did not directly arise on the case stated, he would point out that whatever doubts there might have been about the ad- missibility of the evidence in question for the purpose of Section 2, sub-section 2, it would seem to be clearly admissable for the purpose of Section 4, which gave power to the-District Justice or the Circuit Court judge on appeal to grant a licence subject to such conditions and restrictions as he thought proper and, in particular —without prejudice tot he generality of that power— subject to conditions limiting the days on which and the hours during which the dance hall might be used for public dances. Mr. Justice Walsh and Mr. Justice Griffin agreed with the judgment. The court's decision is now remitted to the Circuit Court judge for consideration in his decision on the appeal. (The Irish Times, 27 July 1973.) Prison sentence on R.T.E. man quashed—£250 fine substituted on contempt issue The Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday quashed the sentence of three months' imprisonment imposed by the Special Criminal Court on November 25 last on Kevin O'Kelly, the Radio Telefis Eireann journalist, during the Sean Mac Stiofáin trial. Instead, it was ordered that he should pay a fine of £250 with three months' imprisonment in default. Mr. O'Kelly was sentenced by the Special Criminal Court for refusing to answer a question put by the Court as to the identity of a man whose voice was on a tape-recorded interview. He was imprisoned but re- leased two days later on bail pending his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. (A fuller report will appear in the November issue.) 185

brought by Mr. Michael Quinn, of Dangan Park, Kim- mage Road West, Dublin, against the refusal of the District Court to grant him a licence. Mr. Justice Henchy, in his judgment, said that the club was a well-known dance hall. Mr. Quinn and his partners had run public dances there since 1968 under licences and had spent some £5,000 in improving and renovating it. Under the annual public dance-hall licence granted to the applicant in September, 1969, 53,339 people attended public dances there—or pre- sumably that number of tickets were sold. No fault was found with the hall or the way the dances were con- ducted or supervised. There were no complaints about noise emanating from the hall during dances and ade- quate precautions were taken by the applicant's staff to prevent disorderly or troublesome persons from entering the premises or being present at dances. The suitability of Mr. Quinn to hold a public dance hall licence was not questioned, nor was any fault found with tho e associated with him in running the hall. Nevertheless, continued Mr. Justice Henchy, when Mr. Quinn applied in 1970 in the District Court for an annual dance-hall licence, his application was refused. He appealed to the Circuit Court against that refusal. The appeal came before Judge Wellwood, who heard evidence that when dances were held on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays, or on the eves of public holidays, or on public holidays, many people came to the dances, not from Clondalkin but from Dublin and surrounding areas. Some of them, he said, came by bus, and because of their drunken and offensive conduct, bus crews and members of the travelling public were intimidated, Garda assistance had to be sent for, and bus services were disrupted. Furthermore, the incursion of such people into Clon- dalkin, which was largely a residential area, disrupted the lives of local residents because of noisy conduct, disorderly behaviour, shouting, obscene language, urin- ation on public and private property and offences such as assault and malicious damage to property. While such conduct did not, in the main, take place in the immediate proximity of the hall, and was outside the control of Mr. Quinn, the particular dances in the hall would seem to be the occasion, if not the focal point, of the misconduct. What the Gircu't Court judge asked in the case stated was whether he might treat the misconduct in question as a relevant matter for the purpose of Section 2, sub-section 2 of the Public Dance Halls Act, 1935, notwithstanding that it would not be controlled by Mr. Quinn and was not his fault. The question was essentially one of statutory inter- pretation, said Mr. Justice Henchy. He said that not alone was the District Justice, err the Circuit Court judge on appeal, entitled to have regard to "any other matter which may appear to him to be relevant" (part of the wording of the section), but he was bound to do so. He said the wording of the question framed by the Circuit Court judge would suggest that the only reason he had to doubt the relevance of the misconduct in question was because it could not be controlled by Mr. Quinn and was not attributable to any act or default on his part. "The fact that the applicant is in no way to be blamed for the misconduct, and that it is not within his power to control it, are, of account so as to redound against course, matters not to be taken into the charac- ter or conduct of the applicant or to reflect any lack